UK Certification Officer union hearings explained
Union hearings can sound distant until you look at what is actually being argued: who gets heard, how votes are run, and whether a union follows its own rulebook. In a GOV.UK notice, the Certification Officer has set out a run of hearings from October 2026 to March 2027 involving the Communication Workers Union, the British Medical Association, TSSA, NASUWT, UCU, Unite the Union and Prospect. If you are new to this area, the Certification Officer is the regulator that deals with some legal complaints about trade unions and employers’ associations. That makes these listings more than diary entries. They are a public record of where members say internal union democracy or discipline may have gone wrong.
Most of the cases rely on section 108A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. In plain English, that section allows a union member to complain that the union has broken its own rules. In this notice, the arguments cover elections, disciplinary procedures, decision-making meetings and, in one case, access to accounting records. **What this means:** not every dispute is about big national politics. Often the question is simpler and more important for members: did the union do what its own rulebook says it must do? That is why these hearings matter, even when the language looks highly technical.
First in the queue is Dabrowski and Whitehouse v Communication Workers Union, listed for 20 to 22 October 2026. The applicants say the union breached its rules in connection with its 2026 branch elections. Election complaints like this usually come down to whether the process was fair, properly run and consistent with the union’s constitution. The next hearing, Ali v British Medical Association on 10 and 11 November 2026, involves six complaints. The notice says they cover disciplinary proceedings by the union as well as other separate matters under the 1992 Act. A few days later, on 17 and 18 November 2026, Coe v TSSA will examine two complaints about disciplinary proceedings, including a claim that the union refused to circulate the applicant’s appeals at Annual Conference 2025 and Annual Conference 2026.
The Coe v TSSA case also raises a principle you will hear often in workplace and public law disputes: natural justice. The applicant says the union failed to give notice of the charges against him and failed to give him a proper opportunity to state his case. **What this means:** a fair process is not only about the final decision. It is also about whether you knew the allegation, had time to answer it and were treated in a way that was even-handed. For anyone trying to understand union complaints, this is one of the clearest examples of how procedure can become the whole case.
Baird v NASUWT, listed for 24 and 25 November 2026, returns to the question of elections. The applicant says the union breached its rules during a 2025 election by denying an opportunity to present an election address to the union’s Executive Committee. That may sound like a small procedural point, but it goes to a basic democratic question. If candidates cannot properly set out their case, members or decision-makers may be choosing without hearing all sides. This is why union rule disputes can matter far beyond paperwork.
The February 2027 hearings are more crowded. Bates, Floyd and Mangan v TSSA, listed for 2 to 4 February 2027, brings together separate applications alleging breaches of union rules in the 2026 National Treasurer elections and in disciplinary proceedings against Mr Bates. Then comes Farwell v UCU (2) on 8 and 9 February 2027. The notice says the complaint concerns the union’s disciplinary procedures and the implied rule of natural justice. If you are spotting a pattern, you are reading this correctly: many of these disputes turn on whether an organisation followed its own process carefully, openly and fairly.
Later that month, Plummer v Unite the Union is listed for 24 and 25 February 2027. The applicant has made six complaints, all under section 108A, alleging breaches of union rules in relation to a decision-making meeting and election procedures. Smith v Unite the Union, on 3 and 4 March 2027, adds another angle. According to the notice, the case includes a complaint under section 30 that the union refused the applicant access to its accounting records, alongside a section 108A complaint about how a Special Executive Council meeting was convened. For members, that links two ideas that often sit together: transparency over money and fairness over governance.
The final hearing currently listed is Hughes v Prospect on 25 March 2027. That complaint alleges a breach of the union’s rule on the constitution and proceedings of a decision-making meeting. Taken together, the schedule shows how often internal union disputes are really disputes about process: elections, meetings, records and discipline. All of these hearings are due to be heard remotely by Zoom. The Certification Office says anyone wishing to join should contact info@certoffice.org or call 0330 109 3602. The office also asks anyone who needs disability-related support to get in touch to discuss reasonable adjustments. **Why this matters:** access is part of fairness too. A hearing cannot feel open if people cannot realistically attend.