Smith v Antigua Trades and Labour Union

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Berridge, J.
• Judgment Date: 08 October 1970
• Neutral Citation: AG 1970 HC 8
• Docket Number: No. 49 of 1967
• Date: 08 October 1970

High Court of Justice

Berridge, J.

No. 49 of 1967

Smith

and

Antigua Trades and Labour Union

L. Lockhart for Plaintiff

Mc C. George for Defendant

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Wrongful dismissal. Facts: The issues were whether a relationship of master and servant existed between the plaintiff and defendant and whether the plaintiff's dismissal was ultra vires. Evidence revealed that the plaintiff was a field officer of the defendant union. He refused to hand over the keys to the Union's car to its executive indulged in abuse on the defendant's premises and encouraged disloyalty by demonstrating against the defendant union. Held: The relationship of master and servant existed between the plaintiff and the defendant and his conduct was inconsistent with his status as a servant and it breached an essential implied condition of his contract of employment as a field officer. The dismissal was justified. Plaintiff's claim failed.

Berridge, J.

1 The plaintiff's claim is for-

• (a) a declaration that his expulsion from membership of the Executive Committee of the defendant union, on the 5th May 1967 is ultra vires, illegal, and void.

• (b) a declaration that his dismissal as a field officer of the defendant union on the 5th day of day 1967 is wrongful

• (c) damages

• (d) Costs

• (e)further or other relief.

2 This, however, is a retrial of this action pursuant to an order of the Court of Appeal embodied in a judgment dated the 17th March, 1970, an the issue only whether the plaintiff was guilty of conduct which was inconsistent with the relationship of master and servant and a breach of essential condition, express or implied I of his contract of employment as a field officer as to justify his dismissal.

3 The Plaintiff was employed as a field officer by the defendant union for approximately fourteen months prior to his dismissal on the 8th May 1967, He was also a member of the Executive Committee of the said union.

4 The defendant union is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, Cap. 376 of the Revised Laws of the State.

5 The plaintiff's case is that on the 5th May 1967 he attended an executive committee meeting which was already in progress and when called upon by the president to vote asked for an explanation as to the subject matter before the meeting. This he did not get and accordingly he did not vote.

6 It turned out that the matter under review was the dismissal of Messrs Walter and Halstead.

7 Next day the plaintiff turned up for work as usual and on the following day, Sunday 7th May 1967, apart from journeying to Potters on a domestic mission and giving one Maurice Christian a lift nothing of importance appears to have taken place.

8 On Monday 8th May 1967 the plaintiff went to the office about 9 a.m. left and returned there where he met Donald Sheppard, Acting General Secretary,

9 From inside the head office the plaintiff states that he watched a number of demonstrators going up the street at about mid-day best he did not participate in the demonstration nor did he have anything to ay about it. After this the acting general secretary told him that the executive had authorised him to dismiss him.

10 The plaintiff alleges that the only date on which he announced the holding of a public meeting was on Tuesday 9th May, and that was in respect of a meeting tea be held by Walters and Halstead.

11 The case for the defendant is that following the dismissal of Messrs Walter and Halstead, Donald Sheppard who was appointed to act as general secretary of the defendant union in place sat the former, went to the office at about 8.3a.m. The plaintiff was not there but on seeing the plaintiff later at about 11 a.m. he told him that some people were waiting...