As the law stands, there is no statutory right for a worker to be accompanied by a legal representative at a disciplinary hearing, the right to a fair and public hearing does not always apply to cases involving immigration and article 6 does not apply to employers, unless it is the State. However, departing from R (on the application of G) v Governors of X School and Y City Council [2011] IRLR 756 SC, in which the Supreme Court held that a teaching assistant was not entitled to legal representation at a disciplinary hearing leading to dismissal, when the referral process that could lead to his appearance on a "barred list", which would end his ability to practise his profession, was entirely separate and distinct. [R (on the application of G) v Governors of X School and Y City Council [2011] IRLR 756 SC, I would argue that in industrial dispute cases related to alleged illegal working and illegal working offences, the referral process is not separate because employers' decision to dismiss migrant workers who are subject to immigration control rests with the Home Office.  This is a grey area, I believe. This matter does not fall outside the scope of Article 6 because it is not related to the entry, residence and removal of aliens, in relation to proceedings concerning the granting of political asylum or deportation (application for an order quashing a deportation order.  (Maaouia v. France [GC], 2000, § 38). Similarly, i do not think that the following cases apply. 

Extradition: see Peñafiel Salgado v. Spain (dec.), 2002; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], 2005, §§ 81-83; and an action in damages by an asylum-seeker on account of the refusal to grant asylum: see Panjeheighalehei v. Denmark (dec.), 2009), despite the possibly serious implications for private or family life or employment prospects. This inapplicability extends to the inclusion of an alien in the Schengen Information System (Dalea v. France (dec.), 2010). The right to hold a passport and the right to nationality are not civil rights for the purposes of Article 6 (Smirnov v. Russia (dec.), 2006). However, a foreigner's right to apply for a work permit may come under Article 6, both for the employer and the employee, even if, under domestic law, the employee has no locus standi to apply for it, provided that what is involved is simply a procedural bar that does not affect the substance of the right (Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria, 2006, §§ 54-62).

As illegal employment and illegal working are criminal offences under section 21 of immigration law  2006 and section 2B of the Immigration Act 1971. Since migrant workers who are guilty of these offences are, on conviction on indictment and summary conviction, liable to arrest by immigration enforcement and the police, I argue that, as our evidence shows the risk of constructive deportation and breach of article 5 caused by mistakes made by employers and the Home Office, article 6 is engaged. Therefore, we should be entitled to legal representation at work in the right to work-related trade disputes.

76. Matters outside the scope of Article 6 include tax proceedings: tax matters still form part of the hard core of public-authority prerogatives, with the public nature of the relationship between the taxpayer and the community remaining predominant (ibid., § 29). Similarly excluded are summary injunction proceedings concerning customs duties or charges (Emesa Sugar N.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), 2005). 77. The same applies, in the immigration field, to the entry, residence and removal of aliens, in relation to proceedings concerning the granting of political asylum or deportation (application for an order quashing a deportation order: see Maaouia v. France [GC], 2000, § 38; extradition: see Peñafiel Salgado v. Spain (dec.), 2002; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], 2005, §§ 81-83; and an action in damages by an asylum-seeker on account of the refusal to grant asylum: see Panjeheighalehei v. Denmark (dec.), 2009), despite the possibly serious implications for private or family life or employment prospects. This inapplicability extends to the inclusion of an alien in the Schengen Information System (Dalea v. France (dec.), 2010). The right to hold a passport and the right to nationality are not civil rights for the purposes of Article 6 (Smirnov v. Russia (dec.), 2006). However, a foreigner's right to apply for a work permit may come under Article 6, both for the employer and the employee, even if, under domestic law, the employee has no locus standi to apply for it, provided that what is involved is simply a procedural bar that does not affect the substance of the right (Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria, 2006, §§ 54-62).