Union representation with management for non union members

[muz379]

Personally in my current place now the reps seem busy enough looking after the membrs to have the time or motivation to support a non member, and as a member it would make me question what the point in paying my subs was if I could just join if I got into trouble.

On occasion, a non-union member finding himself/herself in a "pickle" can recognise it as an opportune time to decide to join the union.

I've seen reps represent people in disciplinary proceeedings in those circumstances but quite clearly tell the person that if things were to result in a dismissal the unions rules would prevent support for a legal claim because they joined after the fact.

 

[Roger1973]

AFAIK: Under UK law every worker has a right to union representation, whether they are in a union or not.

I'd be interested to know what law you've found to say that.

My understanding (one time union rep, not on the railways) is that - with a few exceptions like armed services and police - every worker has a right to join (or not to join) a union, whether there is a 'recognised union' or not. (and there's the right to join a 'non recognised' union even if one is recognised for that job / workplace.)

And that in disciplinary processes, workers have a right to be accompanied / represented by someone, but the idea that unions are compelled to represent workers who have made a choice not to join is a new one on me. As others have said, there may be some circumstances where a union rep might represent a non-member, but it's not that common.

And as for people who join the union only after there's a problem (and in many cases quit again as soon as it's resolved) and expect representation - would you expect to get house insurance if you only took it out after your house caught fire?

An employer has no right, and should not have any reasonable way, of knowing who is a union member and who is not.

Until not that long ago, it was not that uncommon for union subscriptions to be paid via 'check off' - as in it was a deduction from your wages and employer handed it over to the union. I have an idea that some change to legislation either made this more difficult, or stopped it. And if you take industrial action, or go in to a disciplinary meeting with a union rep, they are going to know. At one time, in most workplaces, it was not something you felt a need to hide...

 

[PLY2AYS]

I'd be interested to know what law you've found to say that.

Employment Relations Act 1999 Section 10.
AF and Police exempt obviously.

 

[Darandio]

Employment Relations Act 1999 Section 10.
AF and Police exempt obviously.

It doesn't seem to say that. I could be reading it completely wrong though.

 

[Llanigraham]

Employment Relations Act 1999 Section 10.
AF and Police exempt obviously.

It does not state it has to be a Union rep.
It states the employee is entitled to be accompanied by a companion, and that an be a colleague OR a Union rep.

 

[bluegoblin7]

It doesn’t. As I stated earlier, the relevant law provides the right to be accompanied to specific meetings, namely disciplinary and grievance hearings. It does not specify that it must be a union rep and it does not require an employer to source said representation - simply that it cannot deny an employee their right to representation by a trade union representative or other workplace colleague.

 

[Roger1973]

Employment Relations Act 1999 Section 10.

i think you may have misunderstood what it's saying.

(full text on government website here) which heads it 'right to be accompanied'

in effect, it means that an employer must allow an employee to be accompanied by a representative at a disciplinary or grievance hearing, and that representative may be a trade union rep / official.

it does not place any duty on unions.

 

[Gloster]

Employment Relations Act 1999 Section 10.
AF and Police exempt obviously.

I think you are misinterpreting Subsection 3 to mean that the companion must be a trade union rep. My interpretation is that a trade union rep is one of the categories where a refusal by the employer to accept the companion is grounds for an appeal to a tribunal.

 

[simonw]

So, on that basis, I should expect the AA or RAC to rescue my car on the basis that I might join ?

I am surmising you're not a fan of unions (which is your choice, of course) but expecting unions to help non-members and a refusal to do so as "hardline" I think goes above and beyond the normal level of debate.

Well the AA will help if you pay and sign up for membership, but I can understand why a union might pass up helping someone who is not a member.

 

[Andrew1395]

I can only describe my own experience as management grade union rep in the rail industry for 20+ years.

I attended many formal meetings with individuals who were not union members. But made it clear to the individual and management side that I was attending in the capacity of a “colleague” not a union rep. I always asked for that to be minuted and noted by the chair of any formal meeting.

I did so, because most people in dispute with the employer (discipline, poor performance, whatever), are not in a good place, and needed an ear to help them process what was happening. They needed a critical friend, who could help explain the process, listen to the management case, and repackage that up and reflect it back to help the employee to see where they were. How to respond and to think through their options. I never gave formal advice to Non union members. instead I was always told them to look up information on both the ACAS and Citizens Advice websites to check that my informal advice was in line with employment law. Only union members (with the length of membership that gave them), access to full time officers and the legal advice would receive formal support. That after all is what they paid for.

For me this was both about supporting a colleague in distress, but it also helped other colleagues and management. Because management knew the employee was having support from an informed colleague. Having an employee in dispute, supported by an informed colleague, made the process quicker. And IMHO the outcomes fairer. for example, it meant managers were less likely to try to push the boundaries of the company process. This ultimately was to the benefit of all employees including the union members.

A good staff rep ensures that the formal process of representation and negotiation is undertaken in a cordial and professional way.

Extending that experience to help non union members, ultimately helped build the important trust and professional confidence between union and management. Management knew that an individual was receiving impartial support that helped oil the process. That was good for management and the employee in dispute. This also helped union members as management respected union participation in issues related to terms and conditions, reorganisations and pay.

When BR was a closed shop all individuals were union members and represented by lay and full time union officials. When that changed, non union members could not insist on individual support from lay union and professional union reps.

 

[father_jack]

I'd be interested to know what law you've found to say that.

My understanding (one time union rep, not on the railways) is that - with a few exceptions like armed services and police - every worker has a right to join (or not to join) a union, whether there is a 'recognised union' or not. (and there's the right to join a 'non recognised' union even if one is recognised for that job / workplace.)

And that in disciplinary processes, workers have a right to be accompanied / represented by someone, but the idea that unions are compelled to represent workers who have made a choice not to join is a new one on me. As others have said, there may be some circumstances where a union rep might represent a non-member, but it's not that common.

And as for people who join the union only after there's a problem (and in many cases quit again as soon as it's resolved) and expect representation - would you expect to get house insurance if you only took it out after your house caught fire?



Until not that long ago, it was not that uncommon for union subscriptions to be paid via 'check off' - as in it was a deduction from your wages and employer handed it over to the union. I have an idea that some change to legislation either made this more difficult, or stopped it. And if you take industrial action, or go in to a disciplinary meeting with a union rep, they are going to know. At one time, in most workplaces, it was not something you felt a need to hide...

YES !!!

Payrolls knew who the members were but nowadays the union pushes Direct Debit so the company doesn't know.....

If i recall from anecdote in early privatisation days the train operators stopped conveniencing the unions and collecting the subs and the branches had to collect them. However it suited the companies more to know who was in or out so the previous arrangements were returned to.

 

[skyhigh]

It doesn’t. As I stated earlier, the relevant law provides the right to be accompanied to specific meetings, namely disciplinary and grievance hearings. It does not specify that it must be a union rep and it does not require an employer to source said representation - simply that it cannot deny an employee their right to representation by a trade union representative or other workplace colleague.

And sometimes companies will allow others to represent the staff member based on the circumstances.

I remember a disciplinary hearing for a deeply unpopular member of staff (for many and varied reasons). Not a single union rep or colleague would agree to help so in the end his wife attended instead.

 

[mmh]

So, on that basis, I should expect the AA or RAC to rescue my car on the basis that I might join ?

This isn't a good analogy given that the AA and RAC will rescue your car if you're not a member. They charge you and you sign up on the spot.

 

[PLY2AYS]

I think people are misunderstanding why I’d posted that.

My original point was:

AFAIK: Under UK law every worker has a right to union representation, whether they are in a union or not.

Whether the union choose to assist or represent them in that instance is dependent on circumstance.

This was queried here:

I'd be interested to know what law you've found to say that.

I’m under no impression that their representation has to be from a union, or that the union has to oblige.

But they do have the right to one, if they can source one.

Confused as to how my message has been misconstrued? @Roger1973 @Darandio @Llanigraham @Gloster

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Blimey, which union is that? I wouldn't have joined any where I knew there was a time limit on them representing me for a new grievance.

I've been a union member most of my working life, while working for both unionised and non-unionised employers, and to discover that of any of them would have been an instant reason to change union for me.

I think (but may misremember the order) that this is my union membership history. MSF, Amicus, Unite, PCS, Unison, GMB. You didn't say which union you're a rep for, but are you willing to say if it's one of those in their current or previous form?

It's one of those, in its current form.

 

[Falcon1200]

If i recall from anecdote in early privatisation days the train operators stopped conveniencing the unions and collecting the subs and the branches had to collect them. However it suited the companies more to know who was in or out so the previous arrangements were returned to.

IIRC Railtrack decided to stop collecting Union dues directly from pay, as a way of getting back at the Unions. However this meant that they did not then know who was in a Union, or which they were in. Which, apart from being petty and vindictive, also meant than when industrial action was called they could not know who would be taking action!

 

[RJ]

I think people are misunderstanding why I’d posted that.

My original point was:

This was queried here:


I’m under no impression that their representation has to be from a union, or that the union has to oblige.

But they do have the right to one, if they can source one.

Confused as to how my message has been misconstrued? @Roger1973 @Darandio @Llanigraham @Gloster

The right to be accompanied by someone in certain meetings, and the right to be represented by a union rep are two completely different things.

 

[PLY2AYS]

The right to be accompanied by someone in certain meetings, and the right to be represented by a union rep are two completely different things.

In the eyes of the individual and union, yes.
In the eyes of the employer, no.

But I appreciate the nuance of the language and how that can be mistaken.

I’m under no illusion that there is a law which states union representation must be given to a worker if they demand it.
But they have the absolute right to be represented in a meeting/hearing/whatever proceedings if the union oblige.

 

[Gloster]

In the eyes of the individual and union, yes.
In the eyes of the employer, no.

But I appreciate the nuance of the language and how that can be mistaken.

I’m under no illusion that there is a law which states union representation must be given to a worker if they demand it.
But they have the absolute right to be represented in a meeting/hearing/whatever proceedings if the union oblige.

Although it is not stated directly, Sections 2A and 3 together strongly infer that if a union official agrees with a non-union employee that he or she (the official) should be the companion of the employee at a hearing, the employer must agree. However, I can find nothing that forces the union official to agree to accompany the non-union member if they (the official) do not wish to.

Yes, both union and non-union members have a right to be accompanied to a hearing, but the employee can’t force any particular individual to accompany them. However, union members will be accompanied by a union representative in all cases (with a few very rare exceptions) if they request such of the union. All have the right to be accompanied by someone, but union members can normally rely on an official of reasonable competence doing so, but non-members can’t and, if they are unpopular, may have difficulty getting someone who knows what they are talking about.

 

[Starmill]

Yes but unfortunately not all reps are of equal quality, each circumstance is not the same, there may be history etc. There are so many factors and this has I feel been best stated in the line above:

Yes absolutely - I missed what @Olivine said but that's absolutely on the money.

 

[35B]

Although it is not stated directly, Sections 2A and 3 together strongly infer that if a union official agrees with a non-union employee that he or she (the official) should be the companion of the employee at a hearing, the employer must agree. However, I can find nothing that forces the union official to agree to accompany the non-union member if they (the official) do not wish to.

Yes, both union and non-union members have a right to be accompanied to a hearing, but the employee can’t force any particular individual to accompany them. However, union members will be accompanied by a union representative in all cases (with a few very rare exceptions) if they request such of the union. All have the right to be accompanied by someone, but union members can normally rely on an official of reasonable competence doing so, but non-members can’t and, if they are unpopular, may have difficulty getting someone who knows what they are talking about.

I think the discussion of the fine print and the subtleties of when a union rep may or may not represent someone is missing a key point - that all of the provisions in Section 10 of the Act are about the relationship of employee and employer. The extensive words about unions are then about making sure the definition of a union representative is robust, and that they are relevant.

It doesn't confer any duty on the union to provide that representation, even of a member - as others have said, that's about the agreement between union and member.

 

[PLY2AYS]

I think the discussion of the fine print and the subtleties of when a union rep may or may not represent someone is missing a key point - that all of the provisions in Section 10 of the Act are about the relationship of employee and employer. The extensive words about unions are then about making sure the definition of a union representative is robust, and that they are relevant.

It doesn't confer any duty on the union to provide that representation, even of a member - as others have said, that's about the agreement between union and member.

Completely agree, I think this is where the confusion from others stems from.

 

[AverageJoe]

I’ve know of a driver who didn’t want to be in the union because they felt it was expensive but then wanted representation once they made a mistake.

So for me it depends on why they aren’t a member.

Obviously they could have personal reasons and who knows what they are but if it’s about cost then I don’t think the deserve representation because in the driver grade you should budget to save your job.

If it’s moral reasons or they don’t agree with some principles/members of the union then they should also feel the same about being represented by them.

It’s a strange one but hopefully said person keeps their job and stays paying for a membership. 30/40 quid a month or whatever it is is well worth it to have that security.

 

[riceuten]

This isn't a good analogy given that the AA and RAC will rescue your car if you're not a member. They charge you and you sign up on the spot.

They could, but they could refuse if you're not a Member, which is the same point

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2026 ==

Well the AA will help if you pay and sign up for membership, but I can understand why a union might pass up helping someone who is not a member.

As could the AA

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2026 ==

I think this discussion has run it's course. I get the impression that some contributors think that unions should be compelled to represent non-members, and others not. Often the former perspective seems to come from people who have some axe to grind against trade unions.

I think some confusion may have crept in when people who work in an environment where the union is "recognised", and the latter negotiate on behalf of members and non-members for wage rises and/or terms and conditions. But not representation.

 

[Horizon22]

I think this discussion has run it's course.

I agree. I think everyone has had their say and the OP's question has been satisfactorily answered, so we'll bring this thread to a close now.

Thanks all for your input.