Roadchef Motorways Ltd v GMB & Anor

An Employment Tribunal’s factual conclusion will not be disturbed on appeal merely because the appellate tribunal might have evaluated documents differently. An appeal on perversity requires a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal could have reached. A tribunal is entitled to prefer one witness’s evidence, particularly where it has identified credibility concerns, and to interpret documentary evidence in that light. It must address material evidence and give sufficient reasons, but it need not deal with every point in the precise manner advanced by a party. An informal recognition arrangement may be terminated unilaterally, but termination must be effectively communicated to the union.

Roadchef Motorways Ltd appealed from an Employment Tribunal decision concerning whether the GMB remained recognised for collective bargaining between 6 and 30 October 2008. The Tribunal found that the employer had not effectively communicated any termination of the informal recognition arrangement. It also rejected an estoppel argument, although that issue was not pursued on appeal.

The appeal alleged errors concerning the burden of proof, mutuality, perversity, failure to consider crucial evidence and inadequate reasons. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s findings, particularly its preference for the GMB representative’s account of a meeting on 6 October 2008, disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the informal recognition arrangement could be terminated unilaterally. Its conclusion did not depend on mutual acceptance by the GMB.
2. The Tribunal was entitled to find that no effective communication of termination had been made. The case turned principally on what was said at the meeting on 6 October 2008. The Tribunal preferred Mr Rix’s evidence and found that Mr Lockton was not a credible witness. That was a permissible assessment of the evidence.
3. The documentary material relied on by Roadchef had been considered. The Tribunal was entitled to regard it as supporting Mr Rix’s account rather than Mr Lockton’s. The appellate tribunal could not reweigh that evidence.
4. The authorities on perversity, including Stewart v Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd [1996] ICR 535 and Crofton v Yeboah [2002] IRLR 324, confirmed the applicable stringent standard. No conclusion had been shown which was unsupported by the evidence or which no reasonable tribunal could reach.
5. The authorities on reasons, including Ucatt v Brain [1981] ICR 542 and Meek v City of Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250, were satisfied. The Tribunal addressed the matters relied on and gave sufficient reasons. There was no error of law in its treatment of crucial evidence.
6. The written Partnership Agreement was not legally enforceable as a contract because of section 179 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The parties nevertheless had an informal recognition arrangement whose termination required effective communication.

• Employment Tribunal: Found that the GMB was recognised for collective bargaining between 6 and 30 October 2008, and rejected Roadchef’s estoppel argument.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed Roadchef’s appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s factual conclusions.