BNP membership data breach: the workplace implications

Some people named on the list have expressed fears that they could lose their jobs because their employers will object to any affiliation with the far-right political party. But an employment law expert has said that it would be unlawful for employers to dismiss staff just for being members of the BNP.

The list appeared online on Monday night, according to reports. It is said to contain the details of more than 10,000 people. The BNP told OUT-LAW that the list appears to be an old one, from November 2007, that is the subject of an injunction obtained against six individuals in April.

In a statement, BNP leader Nick Griffin said last night: "We have already sent formal demands to the web hosts to remove the list, pointing out to them that the fact that the publication of this year-old list constitutes Contempt of Court because a court order preventing its release or use was made and consented to by the group of disgraced former employees who first misappropriated it."

That court order prohibits any use of the membership list by the people named.

Deputy leader and spokesman Simon Darby told OUT-LAW yesterday that when the court case was brought, the list was being used to send "destabilising propaganda" to members, though it was not published.

Darby said that he was not alleging that any of those named in the injunction were responsible for Monday's unauthorised publication. He also said that the original list has been augmented by the names of some people who are not and never have been members of the BNP.

He said that the list's publication is an invasion of privacy and said that the BNP has reported the matter to the police.

Griffin said in his statement: "We have also already made a complaint to Dyfed-Powys Police and will be giving formal statements shortly to support our demand for a serious and thorough police investigation into a series of very serious potential crimes, including breaches of the Data Protection Act, theft and receipt of stolen goods, and breaches of the Human Rights Act."

"Unless those involved have been extremely careful to cover their tracks, they are liable to find themselves in very serious trouble – and in prison," he said.

"People have a right to join a political party and not be identified," said Darby. "Why this is happening is an act of political malevolence. It has been done by people with a vested interest in us being destabilised to stop us doing well in the EU elections next year."

The party won a council seat in Lincolnshire last week, which Darby believes is related to the timing of this week's unauthorised publication. The BNP hopes to win its first seat in the European Parliament next June.

"When we find the culprit or culprits responsible or anyone else who's complicit … they will regret it from a legal and financial point of view," he said.

Darby believes that anyone who suffers loss as a consequence of the breach will join the BNP's action for compensation against those found to be responsible. When asked if he had alerted the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Darby said he did not think so.

A spokesperson for the ICO told OUT-LAW today that it will be contacting the BNP for the full facts of the data leak. "We will then decide what action, if any, is appropriate," she said.
"We encourage all organisations to alert the Information Commissioner’s Office if they discover a security breach has occurred. We stand ready to provide advice to organisations to help them deal with breaches effectively and mitigate the risks."

In comments posted to a BNP blog yesterday, people who said they were named in the list expressed concern. "I could lose my job," said one. "God help anyone who is in the army, the pison [sic] service, health care, police officer or a teacher," wrote another.

Since 2004, police officers have been banned from being members of the BNP. Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester Police and spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, told the BBC: "This is because such membership would be incompatible with our duty to promote equality under the Race Relations Amendment Act and would damage the confidence of minority communities."

Griffin claimed last night that "police officers and prison warders are the only people whose jobs involve a specific (and probably illegal) ban on them being members and candidates as long as they do not bring their politics into the workplace."

"The recent Equality Act makes it clear that discrimination against an individual on political grounds constitutes a breach of contractual employment law," he said.

In 2006, the Court of Appeal ruled in a landmark case that an employer did not act unlawfully when it dismissed a BNP member.

Bus driver Arthur Redfearn was sacked after he stood for election as a BNP councillor in 2004. His employers were concerned that his public association with the BNP posed a health and safety risk to users of its service, employees and to Redfearn himself. Redfearn worked with disabled children and adults in a mainly-Asian community. He argued that the decision to dismiss him amounted to discrimination on racial grounds.

But Michael Ryley, an employment law specialist with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that the Redfearn case did not justify the sacking of staff simply because they are revealed as members of the BNP.

"Generally speaking it would be unfair to take any sort of action as an employer against an employee for things they do in their spare time," he said.

Ryley said that membership of an extreme political party was unlikely to bring someone's employer into disrepute. But political activism could, he said, and that may be grounds to terminate someone's employment.

He said that while the employer had justification for dismissal in the circumstances of the Redfearn case, there would not always be justification.

"Standing for election is different from being a member of a party. The issue generally is not the person's belief itself; it's the practical manifestation of that belief. The Redfearn case surfaced when the employee stood in an election. But it would be unfair just to sack an employee for being 'an extremist'," he said.