Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board [1992] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning collective bargaining.

Ms Fitzpatrick concealed a period of employment when she was working for Ford, but was dismissed after 9 days for bad references.

An Evening Standard article had revealed, after she had been working for a few months with the British Railways Board, she had been a member of a Trotskyist group called Socialist Action (UK).

She was dismissed not for ‘deceit’ but because of her ‘previous trade union (and possibly her political) activities, which gave her a reputation for being a disruptive force; and that was the prime reason for her dismissal.’ The reason that the majority of the industrial tribunal did not address the critical question is probably because of their understanding of the Beyer decision [1977] I.R.L.R.

They say, having examined that decision, that so far as proposed activities are concerned it must, and I quote: “involve some cogent and identifiable act and not some possible trouble in the future.” In other words the industrial tribunal are saying that in order to comply with the provisions of section 58(1)(b) there must have been some activity on the part of the employee to which they took exception, which was not a mere possibility but something which was sufficiently precise to be identifiable in her present employment.