Young v Royal Mail Group: EAT dismisses trade union protection appeal over WhatsApp threat

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Saw this EAT appeal on various legal sites in a search, but all were paywall-blocked, so I asked an AI to give me a summary. As with all AI, it may not be accurate, but here it is.

Based on the search results, I can provide you with information about the case you mentioned. The case appears to be Mr M Young v Royal Mail Group Limited, which was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in June 2026.

Key Findings from the EAT Judgment:

1. Case Background: In summer 2022, during a dispute between the Communication Workers Union (CWU) and Royal Mail, a WhatsApp group was established by local union representatives for union members in preparation for scheduled industrial action in late August/early September 2022.

2. The Incident: The claimant (Mr Young) posted in this trade union WhatsApp group a message threatening to "blow up a colleague's car" if they did not participate in industrial action.

3. Dismissal: Royal Mail dismissed Mr Young for gross misconduct, specifically citing "the use of threatening and intimidating behaviour towards two colleagues."

4. Claim: Mr Young brought an unfair dismissal claim, arguing that his WhatsApp posts amounted to "trade union activity," which would have made his dismissal "automatically unfair" under trade union protection laws.

5. EAT Decision: The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal, upholding the Employment Tribunal's finding that:

• The post being made in a trade union WhatsApp group did not amount to protected trade union activity

• Whether the post was intended as a "joke" (as claimed by Mr Young) or perceived as a "threat" (as Royal Mail viewed it), neither constituted protected trade union activity

• Just because conduct occurs during a period of industrial action does not automatically afford it trade union protection

Legal Principle Established:

The EAT reinforced that not all conduct arising during industrial action qualifies for trade union protection. Employers can take disciplinary action against threatening or intimidating behaviour, even when it occurs in union communications channels, if such behaviour falls outside the scope of legitimate trade union activities.

This case serves as an important reminder that trade union protections have limits and do not shield employees from consequences for genuinely threatening or intimidating conduct, regardless of the communication platform used.

[tramssirhc]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... EAT_93.pdf