Walter v Antigua Trades and Labour Union

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Berridge, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 October 1970
• Neutral Citation: AG 1970 HC 9
• Docket Number: No. 48 of 1967
• Date: 13 October 1970

High Court of Justice

Berridge, J.

No. 48 of 1967

Walter

and

Antigua Trades and Labour Union

Appearances:

L. Lockhart for the plaintiff

Mc. C. George for the defendant

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal — Whether the relationship of master and servant existed — Whether there was just cause for the plaintiff's dismissal. Facts: Evidence revealed that the plaintiff was the General Secretary of the defendant union. It was alleged that: (1) he had not accounted for all the Union's cash; (2) The minutes were not sufficiently recorded; (3) he encouraged cliquism and tried to get certain people elected to the Union Executive; (4) he was disloyal since he tried to encourage members to form a rival union. Held: The plaintiff was not a civil servant, but rather, the relationship of master and servant existed between the parties. As such the plaintiff was entitled to bring an action for “wrongful dismissal”. The defendants had failed to show that they had reasonably apparent cause for the dismissal. The plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to damages.

Industrial law - Damages — Wrongful dismissal. Facts: Evidence revealed that the plaintiff was the General Secretary of the defendant union. He was wrongfully dismissed and awarded the following for damages: special damages — for loss of salary; for loss of severance pay and for loss of holiday pay and general damages. Total damages $5,694.15.

Berridge, J.

1 By his generally endorsed writ the plaintiff claims “(a) A declaration that his dismissal from his office of General Secretary of the defendant union on the 5th day of May, 1970 is wrongful.

• (b) Damages

• (c) Costs

• (d) Further or other relief.”

2 The statement of claim was delivered on the 13th July 1967, and the defence on the 23rd April 1968.

3 Pursuant to an order of the court dated the 27th March 1969 the following particulars were delivered by the defendant on the 3rd April 1969:–

• “(a) For some time before and after the 26 ^th September, 1966, the plaintiff constantly quarrelled with members of the executive, formed a clique in the Union whose main aim was to remove certain members of the executive from office and to separate the union from the government, and in general to do other acts and things directed at changing the policy of the union contrary to the known views of the executive and the annual conference of delegates.

• (b) The defendant says that the plaintiff as servant of the defendant was guilty of disloyalty to the Antigua trade and labour union and the executive committee which is the paramount duty owed by a servant to his master.

• (c) The reasons are as follows:–

  • (i) Disloyalty

  • (ii) Failure to account for unions money

  • (iii) Forming cliques in the organisation and constantly quarrelling with the older officers

  • (iv) Showing an extreme reluctance to obey the instructions of the executive and at times disobeying those instructions.

  • (v) Generally acting as though he intends to command rather than obey.

  • (vi) Holding secret meeting in his house and elsewhere aimed at transferring the Loyalty and support of union leaders and members from the union to himself, which resulted in his being able to form a new union within 12 days of his dismissal.

  • (vii) Encouraging officers and members to assist him in changing the policy of the union.

  • (viii) Campaigning and canvassing during ordinary working hours against officers of the executive and endeavouring to create disrespect and contempt for them.

  • (ix) Generally acting in many little ways to show his dissatisfaction with and contempt for the union, its policy and members of the executive duly elected by annual conference.”

4 The plaintiff was, until the 5 ^th May 1967, when he was dismissed by the defendant union, general secretary and a member of the executive committee of the said union from the 3 ^rd January 1960.

5 The defendant is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, Cap. 376 of the Revised Laws of Antigua 1962.

6 The plaintiff's case is that as far back as 1964 he observed a conflict among the members of the Executive, which in accordance with Rule 10(b) of the union rules consisted of the president, three vice presidents, general secretary, treasurer and fourteen members elected annually by ballot at the annual conference. By convention all members of the house of representatives were also member of the executive.

7 The conflict was related to the increase of wages requested by non established government workers which the executive, who were also members of government, contended that government could not afford but which was granted on a considerably reduced scale.

8 Later that year following a strike, the plaintiff discussed the matter with the workers who requested him to put the matter to the union once more.

9 This was done but it was decided that the government would not yield and the plaintiff was instructed to go no further with the matter.

10 In 1965 there was a dispute involving the workers of British West Indian airways. The 3 ^rd vice president who had been made director of the company informed the workers that their posts would be filled if they did not resume work by a certain time and the plaintiff was told to take the matter no further.

11 In 1966 the non establishment workers of the public works department claimed a further increase in wages but the plaintiff was directed to inform them that their demand must await the completion of the purchase by government of the Antigua sugar factory and the syndicates estates.

12 The plaintiff alleges that in each case there resulted a certain amount of dissatisfaction with him by the workers.

13 On the last Friday in April 1967 both the president and Mr. Mc Chesney George accused the plaintiff of going to the manager of Barclays bank and advising him no to lend the government any money to operate the sugar industry because they were not paying adequate wages to the factory workers.

14 The plaintiff who strenuously denied the charge asked that the matter be investigated and a delegation from the executive including the plaintiff went first in quest of one Burrowes who Mr. George alleged gave him the information but Mr. Burrowes said he did not tell anyone what was alleged against the plaintiff. It was then close on midnight but at a meeting next day when the plaintiff reminded the president about finalising the matter, the latter deputed Mr. Lake second vice president to deal with it and he apologised for the incident, stated that the executive were satisfied that the allegation were unfounded and asked the plaintiff to drop the matter which he did.

15 The union labour day celebration of the 1 ^st May 1967 included a demonstration through the streets of the city to Michael's Mount where the president, the 1 ^st vice president and the plaintiff addressed the gathering. The plaintiff alleges that no criticism of him or his work was made at the meeting.

16 The regular meeting of the Executive scheduled for the 28th April 1967, was, on the instructions of the President, deferred to the 5th May 1967.

17 At that meeting, the preliminary formalities having been completed, the President referred to his efforts to get the executive members to work together, their inability to do so and strongly recommended that the plaintiff, among others, be dismissed from office.

18 The plaintiff sought an opportunity to speak but was denied it and the majority present voted for his dismissal. No other business was undertaken, no minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed and the meeting came to an end within about 10 minutes of its commencement.

19 Next day the plaintiff returned the Union's car, a tape recorder and some keys but he took the minute book containing the confirmed minutes for the period 22nd August 1966 to the 10th April 1967 and had them notarised by a Notary Public before returning the minute book to the defendant union.

20 At a public meeting of the 16th May 1967 held by the plaintiff and others it appears that the crowd called for the formation a new union if ministers of government would not resign their membership of the executive, no agreement on this issue was ever reached and a new union - the Antigua workers union was formed.

21 The plaintiff claims that for the first three months the new union was able to pay any salaries to its full time officers and thereafter, for some time only, a nominal salary.

22 The plaintiff denies the allegation stated in the defendant's particulars delivered on the 3rd April 1969, has never been asked any question about the union's funds and that the duty to account therefore was that of the accountant Norville Richards who shortly before the presentation of the 1965 accounts in 1966 informed him of a shortage of $11,000.00.

23 The plaintiff alleges that he made available to Richards two employees trained in accounts and in a few days they traced about $5,000 - $6,000 of the alleged shortage.

24 The plaintiff further states that in 1965 he was in Denmark attending a course and that in the course of that year he was absent from the island for a total period of about 5 months.

25 As far item c(iii) of the particulars is concerned the plaintiff states that the only person with whom he quarrelled was Mr. George a reference to which is to be round in the minutes (Ex. A) of the 9th September and set out below, much emphasis having been placed thereon to indicate the general attitude of the plaintiff.

“He (the president) wanted officers to understand that you may have different options on an issue but the practice has always been that we abide by the majority decisions or views. Comrade Mc George and the General Secretary have been getting at each other. This should be stopped in the interest of the organization. Comrade George replied that he had nothing against any body, he was...