Employment Rights Act 1996, section 103

Employee representatives

Part X Unfair dismissal

[F677 (1)F677] An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee, being—

(a)M35an employee representative for the purposes of Chapter II of Part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (redundancies) or [F678regulations 9, 13 and 15 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006F678] , or

(b)a candidate in an election in which any person elected will, on being elected, be such an employee representative,

performed (or proposed to perform) any functions or activities as such an employee representative or candidate.

[F679 (2) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee took part in an election of employee representatives for the purposes of Chapter II of Part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (redundancies) or [F680 regulations 9, 13 and 15 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 F680] . F679]

Definitions used in section 103 1

employee

(1) In this Act “employee” means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment.

Defined in s.230(1) · see it in the full Act

Cases considering section 103 3

Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust

[2007] EWCA Civ 330 · 7 March 2007

The court held that the factual dispute over whether dismissal was because of protected disclosures or relationship breakdown could not be resolved on strike-out. It expressed no view on the eventual merits of the automatic unfair-dismissal claim. (see paras [27]-[29]; [33])

Longstreth v Croydon College (Fixed Term Regulations)

[2011] UKEAT 0245_11_1409 · 14 September 2011

The provision was identified as part of the whistleblowing framework. The claim failed because the alleged disclosure could not have caused the earlier decision not to renew the contract. (see para [11], [23])

Cafagna v ISS Mediclean Ltd & Ors

[2010] UKEAT 0414_09_1803 · 18 March 2010Defines

The judgment identifies section 103 as part of the protected-disclosure unfair-dismissal regime, but does not decide its substantive application (see [The legislation]).

What each judgment says about section 103 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Amendments and notes

5 notes from legislation.gov.uk

Amendments

  1. F677S. 103 renumbered as s. 103(1) (28.7.1999) by S.I. 1999/1925, reg. 13
  2. F678Words in s. 103(1)(a) substituted (6.4.2006 with application in accordance with reg. 21(1) of the amending S.I.) by The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246), regs. 1(2), 20, Sch. 2 para. 10(c) (with application as mentioned in reg. 21(1))
  3. F679S. 103(2) inserted (28.7.1999) by S.I. 1999/1925, reg. 13
  4. F680Words in s. 103(2) substituted (6.4.2006 with application in accordance with reg. 21(1) of the amending S.I.) by The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246), regs. 1(2), 20, Sch. 2 para. 10(c) (with application as mentioned in reg. 21(1))

Marginal citations

  1. M351992 c. 52.