Port of Belize Ltd v Christian Workers Union
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Madam Justice Geneviève Chabot |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Claim No. 79 of 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
Before the Honourable Madam Justice Geneviève Chabot
Claim No. 79 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2023
Godfrey P. Smith, SC and Hector D. Guerra, for the Claimant
Magalie Perdomo, for the First Defendant
Darrell Bradley, for the Second to Seventh Defendants
(Statutory Immunities)
Port of Belize Ltd. (the “Claimant”) filed a Claim against the Christian Workers Union (“CWU”), its President, Evan “Mose” Hyde, and five members of the CWU (together, the “Defendants”) for damages allegedly arising from a strike action carried out by the Defendants for a period of 8 days between January 20 th and January 27 th, 2022. The Claimant alleges that the strike was illegal, and claims damages for the tort of interference with economic interests by unlawful means against the Defendants.
In their Defences, the Defendants plead and rely on the statutory immunities, privileges, and defences they say are afforded to trade unions and their members under the Trade Unions Act 1 and the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act. 2 They also deny the allegations in the Claim.
The parties requested that the Court deal with the issue of statutory immunity as a preliminary question of law. The parties provided the Court with written submissions and made oral submissions. At the hearing of the oral submissions, the Court asked that the Hansard relating to the introduction of the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act be provided and gave the parties an opportunity to make written submissions interpreting the Hansard.
For the reasons explained in greater detail below, this Court finds that the Defendants are not entitled to the immunity conferred by sections 33 and 34(1) of the Trade Unions Act. The First Defendant does not enjoy a statutory immunity. However, the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act incorporates the rights of workers under the Belize Constitution. 3 Section 13 of the Belize Constitution encompasses a right to strike. The constitutional right to strike is subject to the standard of legality. A trial of this Claim is necessary to determine whether the strike at issue in this Claim was legal under the laws of Belize.
Pursuant to subsection 16(2) of the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act, the Second to Seventh Defendants are entitled to a statutory immunity for any act or omission done in good faith in the course of furthering the objectives of the CWU. The Court declines to determine, at this stage, whether the actions which have given rise to this Claim were done in good faith or bad faith.
The Defendants rely on the immunities provided to trade unions under two statutes: the Trade Unions Act and the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status).
Sections 33 and 34 of the Trade Unions Act provide as follows:
33. An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or that it is an interference with the trade business
or employment of some other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills.34.-(1) An action against a trade union whether of workmen or masters or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union shall not be entertained in any court.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided by section 12 of this Act, except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the trade union in contemplation of or in furtherance of a trade dispute.
Subsection 16(2) of the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act provides as follows:
16(2) No officer, representative or member of a trade union or an employers' organisation shall be personally liable for any act or omission of the trade union or employers' organisation if the act or omission was done by such officer, representative or member in good faith in the course of furthering the objectives of the trade union or employers' organisation.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section, shall not be read and construed as exempting from liability any trade union or employers' organisation, or any officer, representative or member thereof, from any contractual liability for goods, services and obligations incurred by the trade union or employers' organisation in the course of its operations.
The Defendants first point out that the right to strike is recognized and protected by law in Belize and internationally. The Belize Constitution protects freedom of expression and conscience, the freedom to openly exchange ideas, the right to human dignity, the right to work, the right to property, and the freedom of assembly. Section 13 of the Belize Constitution specifically refers to the right to form or belong to a trade union. Belize is a state party to the United Nations' International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 4 and the Charter of the Organization of American States, 5 both of which protect the right to strike. Relying on Saskatchewan Federation of Labour et al v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan,
The Defendants argue that sections 33 and 34(1) of the Trade Unions Act, and subsections 16(2) and (3) of the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act expressly limit liability for tortious activities involving trade unions. According to the Defendants, these provisions show an intention on the part of the Legislature to remove liability for certain tortious actions and to provide immunities for union activities such as strike actions. This includes liability for the tort of interference with economic interest, as pleaded by the Claimant.
The Defendants contend that sections 33 and 34(1) of the Trade Unions Act provide complete protection against liability for the actions of a trade union done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. It is only when a union acts outside the context of the contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute that its officials and members can be subject to liability. The Trade Unions Act defines a trade dispute as “any dispute or difference between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen which is connected with the employment or non employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person”. Here, the evidence is clear that the actions taken by the Defendants were in contemplation of an existing trade dispute.
Counsel for the Defendants noted that all of the authorities relied upon by the Claimant in support of its position that the Defendants are not immune from these proceedings deal with situations where the rights of innocent third parties were affected. The Defendants contend that none of these authorities contradict their position that unions and their members are immune from lability as it relates to the employer. The policy reason underpinning this immunity is the protection of trade negotiations, which include the right to strike. If the Claimant is successful, it would be the end of legitimate negotiations because all strikes include some degree of illegality.
The Claimant argues that the Defendants cannot avail themselves of the immunities offered by the Trade Unions Act. The Trade Unions Act was impliedly repealed by the enactment of the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act, which was meant to supplant it. This is evidenced by the overlap between the two Acts, including, for example, the fact that both Acts provide for the registration of trade unions under different registries.
The Claimant notes that the Defendants plead that they are registered under the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act. They do not plead or allege that they are registered under the Trade Unions Act. To claim the benefits of the protection offered by sections 33 and 34(1), they would have to be registered under the Trade Unions Act.
Alternatively, the Claimant contends that from a constitutional perspective, blanket immunity should not be interpreted in such a way as to breach an individual's right to the equal protection of the law under the Belize Constitution. Individuals should not be denied the right to have access to the courts to determine whether a civil wrong has been committed. Courts should imply limitations to any immunity conferred on unions and their members. Relying on various precedents from common law countries, the Claimant states that the modern jurisprudence establishes that immunity only offers protection when the acts complained of are lawful acts.
With respect to subsection 16(2) of the Trade Unions and Employers Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act, the Claimant says that statutory immunities must be strictly construed. Subsection 16(2) only applies...
To continue reading
Request your trial