London Borough of Wandsworth v Vining & Ors

A parks constable serving in a local-authority parks police service falls within the statutory exclusion for police service where the service is a constabulary maintained by enactment. The exclusion does not depend on the employer operating only a police force, nor on the constable having an unlimited geographical jurisdiction.

Redundancy dismissal, without stigma, reputational damage or another particular adverse feature, does not engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A union's claim for a protective award for failure to consult on redundancies prima facie engages Article 11, but the effect of Article 11.2 required consideration that could not occur without the Secretary of State. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not permit a court to rewrite the statutory police-service exclusion in a manner contrary to the legislation's underlying scheme.

Two parks police constables employed by Wandsworth were dismissed for redundancy when the council disbanded its parks police service. Their union, UNISON, also claimed a declaration and protective awards for alleged failures to consult over the redundancies.

The Employment Tribunal held that the constables were not excluded from bringing unfair-dismissal claims under section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that UNISON's claim was not barred by section 280 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Wandsworth appealed. Following the Court of Appeal decision in Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa and another [2014] ICR 834, the domestic-law construction was effectively settled against the claimants. The central issues were whether Convention rights or the Collective Redundancies Directive required a different construction and, if so, whether such a construction was possible.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal's judgment was set aside. The individual unfair-dismissal claims and UNISON's claims for a declaration and protective award were dismissed.

2. The Court of Appeal's reasoning in Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa and another [2014] ICR 834 applied to the materially indistinguishable parks constables. They served as members of a constabulary maintained by enactment within section 200(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By parity of reasoning, they were in police service for section 280 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Their limited territorial jurisdiction did not mean that they lacked the relevant powers or privileges of a constable.

3. Article 8 was not engaged. Dismissal for redundancy alone, including the ordinary severance of workplace relationships, does not bring a claim within Article 8. The authorities relied on involved additional features, particularly stigma, damage to reputation, or serious effects on personal and professional relationships. The dismissals in this case had no such feature. Article 14 therefore added nothing, and it was unnecessary to determine the Article 6 issue.

4. UNISON's claim for a remedy for a failure to consult over redundancies prima facie engaged Article 11, including when read with Article 14. However, Article 11.2 permits lawful restrictions on police rights. The Secretary of State was not a party, and there was no evidence or argument enabling the Tribunal to assess whether the statutory restriction was justified and proportionate. No determination could therefore be made that Article 11 had been infringed.

5. The Collective Redundancies Directive expressly excludes workers employed by public administrative bodies. It could not assist the claimants. Nor could section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 support the proposed insertion of words such as “full” into the statutory exclusions. That interpretation was uncertain, contradicted McKinnon, and was against the grain of legislation directed to the service performed rather than the employer's sole functions. A declaration of incompatibility was neither sought nor procedurally available at this stage.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed Wandsworth's appeal and set aside the Employment Tribunal's preliminary ruling.
• Employment Tribunal: On 28 September 2012, with reasons sent on 23 January 2013, held that the individual claimants were not precluded by section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that UNISON was not precluded by section 280 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.