Dear Supporters, 

Please see below Press Release from our legal team below.

---------------------

Trades Union Congress unfairly dismiss Darren Lewis and Greg Lepiarz 

The Tribunal finds that given the “poverty of the investigation” there were not reasonable grounds to dismiss and there were unreasonable failures from an employer which by “its nature should have had a much better grasp of the ACAS Code.”

Gerard Airey of Kilgannon and Partners (who along with Paul Livingston of Outer Temple Chambers represented the Claimants) comments as follows:

“Darren and Greg are staunch trade unionists. They have been put through a dreadful experience, badly let down and unfairly dismissed by the main body that advocates their protection. The findings that the TUC failed to investigate matters properly and breached the ACAS Code are startling as a result. There was a failure to provide evidence, and Mr Nowak should not have been involved in both the dismissal and appeal process. It was alarming that Mr Nowak indicated he reviewed the dismissal letters and allowed the Claimants to be dismissed for breach of a policy that didn’t exist. It is also alarming that there have been significant breaches of the ACAS Code of practice given that Mr Nowak was appointed as a member of the ACAS Council in November 2011. I echo the finding that the TUC should have known better.

The TUC have charged Darren and Greg with bringing the TUC into disrepute by their conduct. In fact, it is the TUC’s failings that bring it into disrepute. They cannot on the one hand suggest how employers should carry out processes and then ignore this themselves. That is the definition of bringing the TUC into disrepute and it will be interesting to see if those at fault are now quick to be charged with the same allegation that they levelled at the Claimants. That is a question that the union movement as a whole should now be pressing the TUC to answer. This should not have been allowed to happen and Darren and Greg also should have received more support from their unions, Unite and the GMB. 

The union movement should also be made aware that Darren and Greg have been banned from TUC premises, thus preventing them from taking part in trade union activities and the TUC have refused to lift this ban. This ban should be lifted immediately and I would urge unionists to support a campaign for the lifting of this ban at the conclusion of this case.”

The facts: 

Darren Lewis (‘DL’) began employment with Trades Union Congress (‘TUC’) on 17 September 2001. Greg Lepiarz began employment on 4 June 2018. Both are staunch trade unionists. To assist Newham Trades Council (‘NTC’) GL provided a website to the NTC (importantly IT services are not provided by the TUC to Stakeholders such as NTC) . The arrangements for the website were agreed between Ms Dye, NTC General Secretary, and the Claimants. GL required a payment to cover the costs of the website, but not his time spent working on the site as this was costing him money.

It was agreed that there would be a payment of £320 by Ms Dye to GL. Unfortunately, there was some confusion about whether this had in fact been paid and Ms Dye then raised concerns to the TUC about the website and she reported that her relationship with DL and GL had soured after money was requested having initially thought that the website would be free. GL then wrote to Ms Dye to ask for bank details to repay the £320 and the Tribunal found that this email was deemed by the TUC to be a demand for payment, rather than what it was, a request for details to make repayment.

The TUC swiftly started disciplinary proceedings and suspended DL and GL so that they could secure and preserve evidence. In the course of their investigation Ms Dye sent the TUC a differing statement confirming that a set-up fee had been agreed for the website, but rental fees had not been expected. As part of the disciplinary process GL presented documents showing costs incurred in the sum of $720. This evidence was deemed by the TUC to be unclear, but they didn’t ask GL to explain or produce additional supporting evidence.

The TUC charged GL with 1) providing an IT service to NTC and charging them for this service; 2) giving a false impression that the service was being offered by the TUC to trades councils; 3) using his TUC email account to provide the service and communicate.

DL was charged with facilitating GL to provide IT services to NTC, which he charged them for.

DL and GL were dismissed. All charges were upheld and the TUC also dismissed on charges that were not in the allegations, such as the breach of the conflict of interest policy and disclosure of interest policy and bringing the TUC in to disrepute.

 The dismissal letter was signed and authorised by Paul Nowak, now TUC General Secretary (Deputy GS at the time). He confirmed that he would have satisfied himself that the policies had been applied fairly and that the letter was competent. He then proceeded to hear the appeal and upheld the dismissal.

The law:

When assessing if a dismissal is fair or unfair the Tribunal will ask itself: 

1. Did the Respondent genuinely believe the Claimant was guilty of the alleged misconduct?
2. Did the Respondent hold that belief on reasonable grounds?
3. Did the Respondent carry out a proper and adequate investigation?

The Tribunal must not substitute its view for that of the employer. They must ask if dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. The objective standards of the reasonable employer must be applied to all aspects of the question of whether an employee was fairly and reasonably dismissed.

The decision:

The Tribunal’s concluded as follows:

The investigation 

• There was a lack of consistency amongst Ms Dye’s various statements.
• A reasonable investigation would have included questions about why Ms Dye believed the work was being offered through the TUC and what emails she had from GL’s TUC email account given that Ms Dye had provided none to the TUC.
• Ms Dye’s evidence had not been probed at all by the TUC and they did nothing to look for evidence of innocence as well as evidence of guilt.
• A reasonable employer would have recognised that asking more questions of Ms Dye, as the only witness, may well have led to a different interpretation of her evidence. They relied solely on this uncertain evidence.
• The disciplinary panel did not have all of Ms Dye’s statements before it. There were collectively concerning differences between the statements which had the potential to undermine her credibility. Ms Dixon accepted that these materials should have been provided and had no real explanation as to why she had not done so.
• Mr Rowan said “we were looking for a level of misconduct which fell below our standards and we had enough evidence to prove that this was the case” This attitude led to the substantial flaws identified.
• Each failing closed down the possibility that the material evidence of innocence would be found. This rendered the investigation as a whole cursory and unfair.

 Reasonable grounds

• The evidence didn’t reasonably support a finding that GL had operated for profit/commercial gain. He presented documentation to show costs incurred and it was not reasonable of the TUC to reject that evidence without seeking to understand it properly. GL’s evidence on these issues was perfectly cogent.
• Ms Dye’s evidence referred to a set up fee and rental fee and no one clarified with her if she thought GL was charging for his time and why she thought he was.
• DL had done a significant amount of apparently free work for Ms Dye in other respects. This made it less inherently improbable that the website would have been produced on a not-for-profit basis.
• Given the poverty of the investigation conducted by the TUC, there was not sufficient evidence which a reasonable employer could conclude the website had been provided with a view to commercial gain.
• There were no emails sent from GL’s TUC email address and Ms Dye wasn’t asked to produce such emails. No search of GL’s emails was conducted by the TUC.
• The invoice was not on TUC paper or made out to the TUC or to be paid to a TUC bank account.
• Ms Dye was unclear why she thought the work was being done on behalf of the TUC and the TUC didn’t clarify this with her.
• It wasn’t reasonable to find GL had given the false impression that the service was being offered by the TUC. There was also no email search carried out to substantiate a charge that GL had used a TUC email account to provide the services and communicate as a service provider with NTC.
• There were not reasonable grounds to conclude that DL brokered and facilitated the provision of IT services for charge.
• There were not reasonable grounds to conclude there was a charge over and above the costs of providing the website.
• Given that the Respondent had good evidence of DL providing voluntary assistance with Zoom code, flyers and business cards, without further investigation the Respondent could not have reasonable grounds to conclude that he gave a false impression the service was offered by the TUC.

 The additional charges

• In respect to the breach of the conflict of interest policy, there was not in fact a conflict of interest policy. The relevant parts of the disclosure of interest policy were not put to GL.
• There were not reasonable grounds to conclude the GL had brought the TUC into disrepute.

 General procedure 

• The Tribunal agreed with the Claimants’ global submissions that they had not had a fair opportunity to respond to the additional charges and the appeal hearing was not sufficiently comprehensive to rectify the failings at the earlier stage of the procedure.
• It was unnecessary and unfair for Mr Nowak to have heard the appeals given the availability of Baroness O’Grady (the General Secretary).
• Mr Nowak would not have appeared to be, nor could he properly be considered to be impartial and this aspect of the procedure contributed to the overall unfairness of the dismissals.  His appeal compounded that unfairness.
• The TUC failed to take account of DL’s long service.
• It was difficult to understand the thinking behind the decision not to disclose the statements from Ms Dye. There were some 11 instances of communications from Ms Dye to Ms Dixon not provided to the disciplinary panel or the Claimants. This was material unfairness.
• The suspensions were problematic. The main reason was to preserve evidence and the TUC did nothing to obtain that evidence.
• There was no review of the suspensions and there was no explanation of that failure. The witnesses used the rational as pretexts without any real analysis of the situation.
• There was so much wrong with the investigation that the Tribunal were left in territory where it was simply impossible to conclude with any confidence that a wholly different process might have led to fair decisions to dismiss.

 Failure to follow the ACAS Code

• There were significant failures with significant effects.
• They were unreasonable failures on any view but the more so when considering that this was an employer, which because of its nature should have had a much better grasp of the ACAS Code.
• The failures were done with an awareness of what the expected standard was and there were no identifiable mitigating features.
• This was a sizeable organisation with a dedicated HR function which should have known better.

The matter is now to be listed to consider the remedy that should be given to the Claimants. For this reason, the Claimants are not commenting until the conclusion of the remedy hearing other than to thank the Tribunal for their careful consideration of their cases and their supporters (including those who donated through CrowdJustice) for keeping them going when times were particularly tough.

For any enquiries about this case please contact Gerard Airey at [email protected]

Kind regards,

Gerard

Dear Supporters 

Tues 27 February to Tues 5 March Employment Tribunal

Darren Lewis & Grzegorz Lepiarz v (TUC) Trade Union Congress

Case Nos: 2200230/2023 and 220228/2023

Tuesday 27 Feb - Day 1

Cross examination of: Jenny Dixon - TUC Personnel & Training Manager

 Public gallery joining details:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XZ6NWgDzo-kbE0E1b5Te2nJBQjsyxAT-/view?usp=sharing

 Any problems please contact

[email protected]

 On Tuesday 27 February 2024, the Employment Tribunal will begin wading through a catalogue of errors to ascertain if they agree with our belief - that after 25 years of collective service, we were unfairly and unlawfully dismissed by Trades Union Congress (TUC) in August 2022 after 9 months of torturing suspension. 

 We were denied access to vital evidence, key witnesses and documents.

 We have donated hundreds of pounds and incalculable personal time to deserving causes and yet we were dismissed based on what we believe to be TUC manufactured allegations against us which led to our dismissals for supposed gross misconduct.

We are jointly suing TUC for unfair and wrongful dismissal. We believe that even if there was a genuine case against us, the sanction is disproportionate. Additionally Darren is suing TUC for race discrimination, breach of contract and holiday pay but we believe this case is beyond just those charges. Hopefully it will show root problems inside the TUC which led us to this moment.

Our fight at the Employment Tribunal is for anyone who believes in trade unions and expects to be represented with fairness by their union. If members cannot reasonably rely on our trade unions in our hour of greatest need, what is the point of being fee-paying members - especially at the home of the trade union movement (TUC)?

We are confident that the Employment Tribunal will make a right judgement, but it is vital that you join us for the open to public hearing as our fight is your fight!

Support us at: 

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/tuc-workers-unfairly-sacked/

“If you fight you won't always win. But if you don't fight you will always lose”

Bob Crowe

Darren and Greg

Workers fighting for justice take TUC to Employment Tribunal!

On Tuesday 27 February 2024, the Employment Tribunal will begin wading through a catalogue of errors to ascertain if they agree with our belief - that after 25 years of collective service, we were unfairly and unlawfully dismissed by Trades Union Congress (TUC) in August 2022 after 9 months of torturing suspension. 

We were denied access to vital evidence, key witnesses and documents.

We have donated hundreds of pounds and incalculable personal time to deserving causes and yet we were dismissed based on what we believe to be TUC manufactured allegations against us which led to our dismissals for supposed gross misconduct.

We are jointly suing TUC for unfair and wrongful dismissal. We believe that even if there was a genuine case against us, the sanction is disproportionate. Additionally Darren is suing TUC for race discrimination, breach of contract and holiday pay but we believe this case is beyond just those charges. Hopefully it will show root problems inside the TUC which led us to this moment.

Our fight at the Employment Tribunal is for anyone who believes in trade unions and expects to be represented with fairness by their union. If members cannot reasonably rely on our trade unions in our hour of greatest need, what is the point of being fee-paying members - especially at the home of the trade union movement (TUC)?

We are confident that the Employment Tribunal will make a right judgement, but it is vital that you join us for the open to public hearing as our fight is your fight!

Support us at: 

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/tuc-workers-unfairly-sacked/

“If you fight you won't always win. But if you don't fight you will always lose”

Bob Crowe

 Darren Lewis & Grzegorz Lepiarz v Trade Union Congress (TUC)

Case Nos: 2200230/2023 and 220228/2023

27 February 2024 - 5 March 2024

PRESS: For any media enquiries please contact us or our legal representative

Kilgannon & Partners LLP [email protected]

Darren and Greg

“… Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist…”   

[Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)]

Prior to the start of this nightmare, never - in our wildest dreams - did we ever imagine that ‘they’ would turn out to be the nation’s supposed arbitrator of workers’ rights. It is inconceivable that the bastion of the trade union movement is trying to criminalise two trade unionists for being trade unionists!  

It is vital that everyone understands that this fight is not ours – it is the fight for workers far and wide. Darren and Greg today – but if justice isn’t served to force the TUC and every other employer to adhere to fair and impartial procedures and ACAS guidelines – who will it be tomorrow? 

At the expense of their own integrity, TUC are prioritising the protection of their brand over justice and rights for workers. With the cost-of-living crisis forcing comrades the length and breadth of the UK into industrial action, and a general election looming, workers’ rights cannot be compromised!

So, we thank John McDonnell MP for his unwavering support with our Crowdfunding campaign, and sincerely hope that it paves the way to justice for us and all who may need it in future. 

This is just the beginning.  

Please share this as widely as possible to assist with making the TUC General Secretary accountable before any more workers' lives are ruined.  

Join us on 10th January 2024 at the Congress House, 23-28 Great Russell St, London WC1B 3LS to protest against unfair treatment by the TUC. 

TWO TRADE UNION MEMBERS BANNED FROM ALL (TUC) TRADES UNION CONGRESS PROPERTIES AND EVENTS 

On 31 October 2023, Darren and Greg, were banned from the home of trade union movement (Congress House), and all TUC properties, as well as TUC associated events. 

Darren and Greg committed 25 years combined as TUC employees, without any verbal or written warnings throughout their careers.

On 17 August 2022, they were dismissed by the TUC for gross misconduct namely: 

• Brokering and facilitating services to Newham Trades Council for financial gain of £320 giving the false impression that the services were being offered by the TUC to trades councils. 
• Using TUC email accounts to provide services which led Newham Trades Council to believe that they were communicating with them as TUC employees, when they were acting for their own benefit.

TUC’s position is Darren and Greg will no longer be permitted to access any TUC premises or any events at alternative premises that have been exclusively organised by or for the TUC as Darren and Greg seriously abused their positions at the TUC.

With a strong community and trade union movement record of non-profit activity, as well as no event disruptions for 25 years, Darren and Greg strongly oppose TUC banning order, and are currently suing TUC for the following:  

• Race discrimination
• Unfair dismissal 
• Holiday pay 

Their Employment Tribunal hearing is scheduled for 27 February to 5 March 2024.

Court proceedings are open to the general public and all trade unionists.

Dear supporters, 

We promise to keep you updated with our movements on the Crowdfund page. 

Thank you for all your messages and continuous legal crowdfund support 

(very much appreciated).

Protecting workers rights for all is always a must. No worker should be denied the rights to fair and impartial treatment within the workplace.        

Due to ongoing questions received we feel obliged to update you on our case and crowdfunding  actions to garner necessary support from those within or outside the trade union movement believing in equality, as well as fighting racism and injustice.  .

We have approached over 2,000 sources over 2 years seeking protection and support, starting from ground zero being advocates such as  the TUC General Council. TUC Anti-Racism Taskforce, Plus recently the TUC National Race Relations Committee. Despite our numerous attempts we have been completely ignored. 

Please see below  some of our attempts:

TUC General Council, 56 members. 7.12.22. “Disproportionate Unfairness” NO RESPONSE

TUC General Council, 56 members. 23.1.23. “Grzegorz Lepiarz and Darren Lewis - Employment Tribunal Claims” NO RESPONSE

TUC General Council, 56 members. 25.7.23 “TUC at the Employment Tribunal” NO RESPONSE

TUC General Council, 56 members. 26.10.23 “Black History Month - Education - Equality “ NO RESPONSE

TUC General Council, 56 members. 2.11.23 “TUC Meeting Code of Conduct“ NO RESPONSE

TUC Anti-Racism Taskforce, 24 members. 27.7.23 “TUC Anti-Racism Taskforce” NO RESPONSE

TUC Anti-Racism Taskforce, 24 members. 6.10.23 “TUC Pledges endorsed by the TUC ARTF” NO RESPONSE

TUC Anti-Racism Taskforce, 87 members (including TUC General Council) 6.10.23 “True equality or gimmicks?” NO RESPONSE

For your information:

TUC General Council (GC)

TUC policy is set by Congress annually, but between Congresses this responsibility lies with the TUC General Council. Its 56 members meet every two months at TUC Congress House to oversee the TUC's work programme and sanction new policy initiatives.

TUC Anti-Racism Taskforce (ARTF)

Formed 2020, ARTF is leading the trade union movement’s renewed campaign against racism at work. Its remit to engage with Black workers across the UK to hear about their experiences. And it will produce recommendations on tackling structural racism in the UK, in workplaces and in unions themselves. 

If you work for Trades Union Congress (TUC), or union in a paid or voluntary capacity  and your union fails to represent you properly, challenge it  

OPEN LETTER to: Sharon Graham , General Secretary (unite the Union) 

Dear Sharon Graham,  

Re: Justice for Darren and Greg - Unite the Union members 

By now, you will have been advised, through various sources, that we were dismissed from the TUC under what can mutually be agreed as irregular circumstances. 

We shared with you, in your capacities of both Unite the Union General Secretary as well as a member of TUC General Council, details of our case but incredulously have yet to receive any sort of response from you.  

Sub-unsatisfactory support from Unite the Union 

We are also writing to you now to address another; some might say more pressing; element of our experience and egregiousness. As fully paid-up members of Unite the Union at the time of our dismissal, the level of support we received was sub-unsatisfactory!. 

That is to say, even less than unsatisfactory! So astounded were we by Unite the Union’s handling of our case at local and regional level, that we were unable to engage in addressing it at that time, for fear of exhausting the clock on our Employment Tribunal (ET) case.

Underhanded ploy of Unite the Union? 

You might note General Secretary, that it has been suggested by several comrades that exhausting the ET clock appears to have been the underhanded ploy of Unite the Union.

When we were suspended on 1 December 2021, in our naïve innocence, we were confident that there had been some easily explainable misunderstanding which would come to light through the earliest part of the employer’s investigation. Our misplaced confidence was based on the fact that our local representatives act from a Joint Negotiating Consultative Committee and were not acting as sole entities.

Our local representatives unanimously agreed that we had not been given access to a fair and impartial process and should things go against us, at the very worst should expect a written warning. Our local representative even went so far as to write to TUC’s General Secretary to explain that:

a. We had not been afforded access to a fair and impartial process

b. They could see no provision in TUC’s policy for them to remove sick pay – particularly after TUC procrastinated with the completion of the internal investigation (it was completed some 7 months after their own recommended 10 days!) 

They also recommended that we raise a grievance. They would later admit that we stood no chance of winning the grievance or appeal and had submitted them purely for procedural purposes.

No contact from Unite the Union for more than 100 days

Additionally, we also felt repeatedly stonewalled by our own Unite the Union representatives when we tried unsuccessfully to make contact with one very senior local representative, where Grzegorz was not able to establish contact him for more than 100 days.

The conditions of our suspension stipulated that we were to have no access to the employer’s internet/intranet system or any contact with work colleagues. It was only at the appeal stage of the dismissal process that Grezg and I realised we had been living the same experience.

When the realisation hit that we were not going to receive the representation we were expecting from our local representatives, we referred the matter to the regional office.

We were astounded when through non-verbal communication, the FTO implied her discontent at our decision to formally complain about the conduct of our local representative. After we lost the appeal, we asked the allocated Regional Full-time Officer (FTO) to advise us on the procedure for referring the case to the Employment Tribunal. We remain unsure why the FTO didn’t make a simple phone call when we asked for the information.

Questionable claims by Unite the Union Full Time Officer 

Instead, the FTO informed us that they would have to do some research to find out what the procedure was. We have since discovered that as ET referrals are likely to be one of the essential parts of the job of a Regional FTO, the response was questionable and highly irregular. Particularly as they caused us great anxiety by failing to get back to us with a response for some time – while the ET deadline was fast approaching. 

When the FTO referred our case to the Union’s lawyers, we realised that after collective membership of more than 30 years, we couldn’t rely on the support of Unite the Union for any genuine representation at all.

Scantily written submission by Unite the Union FTO 

We were shocked by the fact that the lawyers felt able to come to any overall assessment at all based on the scantily written submission provided by Unite the Union’s FTO. Furthermore, the derisory and dismissive tone deployed when our case was apparently assessed beggars belief.

“To me the only real evidence that would have exonerated him [Darren} is if he can show he was also duped by the colleague’ misrepresentation [Grezg] but currently that doesn’t appear to be the position therefore do not refer.” Unite the Union legal advice – 9 November 2022

We remain unsure if this slapdash assessment was from Thompson’s, Slater & Gordon, Russell Jones and Walker or some other entity purporting to be practitioners of employment law. We invite confirmation through this open letter. 

We are guilty of nothing more than having and deploying trade union values both within and without the workplace.

Misguided after decades of trade union subscriptions 

We completely refute the allegations made by the respondent and are legally challenging their conduct; not only for ourselves, but for the benefit of all those who will come after us. Those who might be of the misguided belief that after decades of trade union membership and subscriptions in excess of thousands GBP (£), they can rely on the support of Unite the Union, GMB or any of the other trade unions at the Congress House Joint Negotiation Consultative Committee table.

Requesting reimbursement of our subscriptions

We are innocent of any intentional wrongdoing and are still reeling in shock at the highly unethical experience we have had throughout the process (or lack of). But if this is our experience in the purported UK home of workers’ rights, we shudder to think what level of support you provide for general lay members – who are without access to the advice and support we have had to seek from elsewhere.

As we have had to seek independent legal assistance, we are therefore writing to you now requesting a 95% reimbursement of our paid subscriptions and hope to hear from you soon.

Kind regards 

Darren Lewis and Grzegorz Lepiarz

#Unite_the_Union 

#GMB_union 

#JNCC 

#stonewalled_by_union 

#Employment_Tribunal 

#Thompsons_solicitors 

#Slater_&_Gordon 

#Russell_Jones_&_Walker 

#Reimburse_subscriptions

Example of volunteer work done for Newham Trades Union Council (as advertised on their facebook). Our volunteer support for the trade union was a reason for our unfair dismissal by the TUC. Please support our campaign.

Dear supporters,

Thank you for overwhelming support since we started the campaign 48 hours ago.

Please note that we are now on Facebook and Twitter where we will also keep updating supporters.

Twitter

Facebook

Please support fairness and impartiality for all workers at every workplace.