Individual rights arising from union membership

This subtopic considers various rights that arise from or in relation to trade union membership.

Employment rights

An employee or prospective employee has a number of rights relating to their employment that arise as a result of their union membership status:

•
the right not to be refused employment because they are, or are not, a union member
•
the right not to be subjected to any detriment by their employer for the purpose of preventing or deterring them from becoming or from ceasing to be a union member
•
the right not to be dismissed because they are or are not a union member

For more information, see Practice Note: Employment rights and trade unions.

Rights relating to activities involving unions

Time off for union-related activities

Trade union officials are entitled to reasonable paid time off during working hours to undertake certain specified trade union duties.

Similarly, union learning representatives are entitled to reasonable paid time off during working hours for certain specified learning and training purposes.

Any union member is entitled to take reasonable time off during working hours for

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Employment News

Equality Act 2010 provisions refer to biological sex, regardless of gender recognition certificate (For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers)

Public Law analysis: The Supreme Court held that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) refer to biological sex. Its relevant provisions cannot be interpreted as including ‘certificated sex’ under a gender recognition certificate (GRC) without rendering them incoherent and unworkable. In relation to sex discrimination, a person has the protected characteristic of their biological sex only. The relevant provisions of the EqA 2010 fall within the section 9(3) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) and so displace the rule in s 9(1) of that Act that the gender of a person with a GRC is for all purposes the acquired gender. This is a very significant judgment on the meaning of the EqA 2010, and on the law of discrimination particularly as it affects women and trans people. It must be understood by all those who advise on or are concerned with discrimination law, particularly employers, service providers and public authorities. Written by the LexisNexis Public Law team.

Employment weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) an EAT decision reminding employers of the need to consider alternative employment in a redundancy situation; (2) a Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) report evaluating the UK’s parental leave system; (3) an EAT decision on the employment tribunal’s approach to striking out a claim; (4) an EAT warning about objecting to applications for extensions of time; (5) the July 2025 edition of the Industrial Relations Law Reports (IRLR), (6) dates for your diary, and (7) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

WEC publishes report on UK parental leave system

The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) has published a report evaluating the UK’s parental leave system. It identifies key shortcomings, including low statutory parental pay, limited paternity leave, and complex eligibility criteria for shared parental leave (SPL). The report finds that the statutory pay rate—significantly below the National Living Wage—creates financial hardship and discourages uptake, particularly among fathers and other parents. The WEC recommends a series of reforms. While acknowledging the direct fiscal impact, it argues that the wider social and economic benefits, such as those achieved through increasing mothers’ labour market attachment and career progression and narrowing the household gender pay gap, would justify the investment. The government has two months to respond.

Naked no-poach agreements considered prima facie as ‘by object’ restrictions unless specific circumstances present (CD Tondela and others)

Competition analysis: In his Opinion in the Tondela Case delivered on 15 May 2025, Advocate General (‘AG’) Emiliou at the Court of Justice of the EU argues that no-poach agreements entered into between competitors have all the characteristics to be considered prima facie restrictive of competition ‘by object’, unless the content, the legal and economic context and the objectives of the specific agreement at issue cast doubt on the harmful nature of the agreement or if the no-poach agreement is ancillary to a transaction which is itself not anti-competitive. In application of the Meca-Medina case law, AG Emiliou argues that the objective of the no-poach agreement in question (ensuring a fair and orderly end of the 2019/2020 football season during coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic) was worthy of protection under EU law and absent any equally effective and less restrictive measures necessary and proportionate to that objective. Written by Peter Giese, Kirsten Baubkus-Gérard, Elisa Götz, lawyers at CMS.