Langley v GMB & Ors

A trade union that assumes responsibility for advising and representing a member owes a duty to exercise the reasonable skill and care expected of a trade union. That includes practical industrial-relations and employment advice, strategic and tactical advice, and reasonable knowledge of employment law. It does not create a vague “quasi-legal” duty or ordinarily require the union to litigate. A negotiated strategy may be reasonable where litigation prospects are poor. A solicitor instructed only on a settlement agreement is responsible for advising on its meaning and effect, not the underlying merits, unless the retainer extends further. Advice on settlement terms will generally establish negligence only if it was blatantly wrong.

The claimant was a GMB member and shop steward employed by Birmingham City Council. After speaking to the press about a garden-waste collection exercise, he was suspended and faced possible disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct. The GMB advised him on the merits of potential employment claims, pursued a strategy of delay and negotiation, and secured a termination package. Trade Union Law was then instructed to advise on the resulting Compromise Agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The claimant alleged negligent advice, failure to seek interim relief, inadequate strategic support, lack of independence, pressure to settle, and breach of the solicitors’ retainer. The central issues were the scope and standard of the duties owed by the union and solicitors, and whether any breach caused loss.

1. GMB’s duty. The GMB owed a duty arising from its voluntary assumption of responsibility. The standard was the reasonable skill and care expected of a trade union advising and representing a member in employment and industrial-relations matters. This included practical advice, general employment-law knowledge, negotiation, and strategic and tactical advice. The court rejected the proposed “quasi-legal” standard as vague and misleading.
2. Strategy and interim relief. The agreed strategy of delaying disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the claimant on pay, applying political and industrial pressure, and negotiating an exit package was reasonable. The GMB was not under a tortious or contractual duty to instruct lawyers or apply for interim relief. An application under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 would have had to be made promptly under section 129 and required a pretty good chance of success. The proposed whistleblowing claim was weak, and interim relief was likely to have accelerated the disciplinary process and worsened the claimant’s position.
3. Whistleblowing prospects. The claimant had difficulty establishing a qualifying disclosure under section 43B. His interviews did not disclose the alleged breach of election law, there was no evidence that he believed the information disclosed to be unlawful, and any such belief would also have had to be reasonable. His direct approach to the press created further difficulties under sections 43G and 43H. The tribunal claim was therefore unlikely to succeed.
4. Solicitors’ duty. Trade Union Law owed the duty of a reasonably competent employment lawyer within the scope of its retainer. The retainer was to explain the meaning and effect of the Compromise Agreement, not advise on the merits of rejecting it. The advice given was accurate and sufficient. Trade Union Law was independent of the employer for section 203 purposes, and no conflict with the GMB was established.
5. The claimant was not bullied or coerced into accepting the agreement. There was no collusion or actionable failure of pastoral care. The claim against the second defendant was withdrawn. The claims against the GMB and Trade Union Law were dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.