Stevenson v United Road Transport Union
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | LORD JUSTICE BUCKLEY |
Judgment Date | 28 January 1977 |
Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] EWCA Civ J0128-6 |
Date | 28 January 1977 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1977] EWCA Civ J0128-6
Lord Justice Buckley
Lord Justice Orr and
Lord Justice Goff
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
On Appeal from Judgment of His Honour Deputy Judge Billon, Q.C,
Mr C.D.R. ROSE, Q.C. and Mr J.L. HAND (instructed by Messrs Gregory, Rowcliffe & Co., Agents for Messrs Towns, Needham & Co. - Manchester) appeared on "behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
Mr D.J. TURNER-SAMUELS, Q. C. and Mr S.J. SEDLEY (instructed "by Messrs Casson & Co. - Salford) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
The Judgment that I am about to read is the Judgment of the Court.
The Plaintiff, Mr John Stevenson, is a member of the Defendant Trade Union. In September 1970 he was appointed an officer of the Union, and he so continued until 9th July, 1974, when the Executive Committee of the Union purported to dismiss him. By writ dated 19th July, 1974 the Plaintiff sued the Union for a declaration that his dismissal was in breach of the Union's rules, in breach of natural justice, ultra vires and null and void. The action was tried by Mr G.B.H. Dillon, Q.C, as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court, who, on 9th March, 1976, made a declaration in those terms, but declined to grant any injunction or to award the Plaintiff any damages. The Union appeals against the declaration.
The memorandum under the Contract of Employment Act, 1963 of the terms of the Plaintiff's employment as an officer of the Union states that "the conditions of employment are as printed in the Union Rule Book which may be amended from time to time." The memorandum further states, under the heading "Disciplinary Procedure", as follows: "Should you have a grievance this should be submitted to the Assistant General Secretary in writing who will arrange to interview the parties concerned with a view to resolving the difficulty. Appeal by any of the parties can be made to the General Secretary who will attempt to resolve the difficulty. Either parties may appeal against his decision to the Executive Committee at any of these hearings and you would be entitled to bring along a full-time officer of your choice, to assist with your case". There then followed two "Special notes", the second of which reads: "In all matters of dispute the Union's Rule Book, asamended from time to time, takes precedence over this contract".
Under Rule 13 of the Rule Book the supreme government of the Union is vested in a Triennial Delegate Meeting. In the event of an emergency the Executive Committee has power to summon a Special Delegate Meeting. Rule 13(4) empowers the Triennial and Special Delegate Meeting to hear all appeals by members against decisions of the Executive Committee. Rule 14 provides for an Executive Committee, and that all decisions of the Executive Committee shall be binding upon all members and divisions "until such decision has been repealed by the Triennial Delegate Meeting".
Rule 15 is of importance and I will read it. Paragraph 1: "The Executive Committee shall have power to appoint officials from time to time as may be deemed necessary in the interests of the Union. Such officials, shall hold office so long as they give satisfaction to the Executive Committee. All officials of the Union shall give such securities as may be deemed necessary by the Executive Committee".
Paragraph 2: "Officials shall act under the directions of the Executive Committee, General Secretary and Divisional Officer. They shall visit 3uch branches and places as they are directed, and they shall reside wherever most convenient for the Union's work. They shall be subject to suspension/ and or dismissal by the Executive Committee. They shall in no case take part in any trade movement or issue circulars without the express authority of the Executive Committee, the General Secretary or Divisional Officer".
Paragraph 3: "Officials shall be paid such salaries and allowances as the Executive Committee may negotiate. Theyshall give three months notice before resigning and receive three months notice before being dismissed from office. They shall be allowed 28 days holiday per annum".
Paragraph 4: "All applicants for position as an Official must have at least 12 months membership with the Union at the time of application".
Appeals by members are dealt with in Rule 25, paragraph 1 of which is in these terms: "Any member dissatisfied with the decision of his her branch may appeal to the Executive Committee, and failing to receive satisfaction there from, may appeal to the Triennial Delegate Meeting, whose decision in all cases shall be final". There is no rule dealing specifically with appeals by officers, but, as appears from Rule 15(4), every officer, must be a member and so has such rights of appeal as belong to a member.
It seems that friction developed between the Plaintiff and other officers and members of the Union. The details of this are irrelevant and the learned Judge made no findings about them except to say that ho had no doubt that the friction was in large part due to the Plaintiff's difficult personality. He described the Plaintiff as a pugnacious man, who has difficulty in accepting the views of people who do not agree with him and has plainly developed a persecution mania.
During the relevant period the General Secretary of the Union was Mr Jackson Moore, and the Divisional Officer of the North Western Division of the Union was Mr Durant. Region 13 of the Union, of which the Plaintiff was Regional Officer, was transferred in about December 1973 to the North Western Division, and consequently Mr Durant then became the Regional Officer under whose directions the Plaintiff was required to act.
On 10th June, 1974 Mir Moore, as General Secretary of the Union, wrote to the Plaintiff in the following terms:
"The Executive Committee instruct me to inform you that you are suspended from duty (with pay) from today and that you are required to attend a special Executive Committee Meeting to be held at these offices on 9th July, 1974 at 1 p. m, when a disciplinary case against you for failing to carry out instructions and failing to do your duty to the satisfaction of the Executive Committee and for infringing Rule 30 will be considered.
"A report from Mr Durant requests a reference to the Executive Committee for non-co-operation and failing to carry out instructions. These, you will recall, are the items we were trying to sort out in my office on 23rd May, 1974.
"Also I did instruct you to be at Head Office on 8th June, 1974 regarding the above and confirmed this in writing. You did not comply with this instruction. I also instructed you to be at Head Office on 8th June, 1974 regarding the Delegation from Region 13. Again you did not comply.
"The reference to Rule 30 is that I had to report to the Executive Committee that Granada TV stated they had a taped interview with you reference the running of the Union. If this is fact then it would be contrary to Rule 30.
"As you know the branch of Sam Longson has sent in a Resolution that it does not wish to be represented by you and the branch of Peak Trailers has sent in a similar Resolution.
"A copy of this letter is being sent to your solicitors." On 12th June, 1974- the Plaintiff's solicitors, Messrs Casson & Co, wrote to the Union's solicitors, acknowledging that the Plaintiff had received the letter of 10th June andsaying: "So that we can advise our client as to whether he should attend the meeting of the Executive Committee on the 9th July, please let us have a copy of the Report from Mr Durant', the Resolution from the Branch of Sam Longson and the Resolution of the Branch of Peak Trailers.
"Please let us know under what Rule of the Union our client has been suspended (with pay) from the 10th instant and the Rule under which the union refused to allow our client to perform duties from the 23rd ultimo until the 10th instant. Was this another suspension?
"Are we correct in assuming that a representative of this office will be permitted by the Executive Committee to accompany our client to the Meeting on 9th July?"
On 20th June, 1974 the Union's solicitors replied, saying: "There can be no question of our providing a copy of Mr Durant's report. This is a confidential document referring to natters of dispute between Mr Durant and your client, and breaches of discipline and refusal to obey instructions by your client of which he is very well aware.
"Copies of the Resolution of the Branch of Peak Trailers and of Sam Longson will be forwarded in the next couple of days.
"Your client was suspended under Rule 15(2). From 23rd May to June 10th, by arrangement and agreement, he was on holiday.
"Neither the General Secretary nor ourselves have any objections, as a matter of courtesy, to your client having his legal adviser present on July 9th. This is, however, clearly a matter for the Executive Committee themselves, who will-not be meeting before that date. The Union Rules make no provision for legal representation".
To this letter the Plaintiffs solicitors replied on 4th July, 1974, saying: "It appears that the Executive Committee on the 8th June, 1974 decided to make two charges against Mr Stevenson. These are, first that he has not complied with instructions and has not co-operated in the running of the region as set out in a report from Mr Durant. Mr Stevenson is obviously entitled to a copy of this report and of any other documents relating to this charge which are in the possession of the Executive Committee either collectively or by its General Secretary. Secondly, our client is charged in that on some date and at some place unspecified he gave a taped interview to Granada Television concerning the running...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
STATUTORY REPUDIATION, NATURAL JUSTICE AND SECTION 13(2) OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACT
...Singapore courts refer to the judges listed in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (e). 6 Supra n 4, sub-para (c). 7 [2002] 4 SLR 794. 8 [1977] 2 All ER 941. 9 DC Suit No 4989 of 1997. The Employee sought the assistance of the Singapore Airlines Staff Union (“SIASU”) to sue on his behalf befor......
-
Contractual Discretion and Administrative Discretion: A Unified Analysis
...that the master would need to hearboth sides before deciding would surely havese emed ridiculousto the parties.187 Ab ove n 174.188 [1977]ICR 893,902, applied in RvBritish Broadcasting Corporation, ex parteLavelle [1983]1 WLR 23.189 Gillen vLa¡er(1925)37 CLR 210, reversed bythe Privy Counci......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...personnel management, had indicated a somewhat wider scope to the need for an unbiased hearing (Stevenson v United Road Transport Union[1977] 2 All ER 941). Rubin J considered that the question whether the principles of natural justice applied to the plaintiff”s contract would depend on whe......