As well as the right not to be dismissed on grounds relating to union membership or activities (TULRCA 1992, ss.152 and 153 and see Trade union matters/unfair dismissal ) a worker has a separate right "not to be subjected to any detriment as an individual by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer if the act or failure takes place" in certain union related situations - ie a right not to be victimised or discriminated against (TULRCA 1992 s.146 as amended by Employment Relations Act 1999 sch.2 and by Employment Relations Act 2004 ss.30 and 31).

The protection, previously only available for an individual who came within the definition of employee, was extended from 1st October 2004 to anyone within the wider definition of worker. Also from 1st October 2004 TULRCA 1992 s.146 has had a snappier new title (see heading of this note) - until then it was entitled "Action short of dismissal on grounds related to union membership or activities" (see Employment Relations Act 2004 s.30 and Employment Relations Act 2004 (Commencement No.1 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2004, SI 2004/2566 and for the reasons for the change see London Borough of Southwark v Whillier CA 2001 ICR 1016 and notes at act or action).

The most generally relevant part of s.146 is TULRCA 1992 s.146(1) (as amended). This provides that a worker can present a complaint to an Employment Tribunal if he is "subjected to a detriment" short of dismissal by his employer:

"for the purpose of:

1. preventing or deterring him from being or seeking to become a member of an independent trade union or penalising him for doing so,
   
2. preventing or deterring him from taking part in the activities of an independent union at an appropriate time (see Trade union matters/unfair dismissal/for taking part in TU activities ); or
   
3. preventing or deterring him from making use of trade union services at an appropriate time, or penalising him for doing so (added wef from 1st October 2004 by Employment Relations Act 2004 s.31(2)) or
   
4. compelling him to become a member of any trade union or of a particular trade union or of one of a number of particular trade unions".

In an important ruling handed down on 2nd July 2002 in the Palmer & Wilson case (ECtHR nos 30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96 reported at [2002] IRLR 568) the European Court of Human Rights held that permitting employers to use financial incentives to induce employees to surrender union rights (in this case collective bargaining rights) is a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of assembly and association), thus suggesting that at least to some extent the existence of the above loopholes meant that British law was an abuse of human rights (for general background click here on Palmer & anor v Associated British Ports 1995 ). In February 2003 the DTI announced proposals which would block the "loopholes" noted above (see Dispute Resolution/review of the Employment Relations Act 1999 ). These proposals eventually took shape, with effect from 1st October 2004, as TULRCA 1992 new s.145A ("Inducements relating to union membership or activities") and TULRCA 1992 new s.145B ("Inducements relating to collective bargaining"), plus other related provisions introduced by Employment Relations Act 2004 s.29 (see notes at Trade union matters/Inducements relating to TU membership or activities and/or at Acts of Parliament etc/Employment Relations Act 2004 ).

The Employment Relations Act 1999 s.3 gave the government power to introduce regulations to outlaw the blacklisting of trade unionists. Nothing was then done as there was no hard evidence that blacklisting was taking place but in 2009 the problem has resurfaced and the government is proposing to introduce DRAFT Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010.

See also Trade union matters/Inducements relating to TU membership or activities and/or Unfair dismissal/automatically unfair dismissals/taking part in union activities and/or Bullying at work .