Young v Euro Caribe Shipping (Services) Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Moe, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 230 of 1977
• Date: 19 March 1981

Supreme Court

Moe, J.

No. 230 of 1977

Young

and

Euro Caribe Shipping (Services) Limited et al

Mr. Glen Godfrey for the plaintiff

Mr. D. Courtenay, S.C. for the first defendant

Mr. J.C. Gray for the second defendant

Industrial law - Trade union — Expulsion from trade union — Expulsion unlawful — Plaintiff claimed he was unable to find employment as a result of unlawful expulsion — Whether plaintiff entitled to recover damages from the second defendant for his inability to find work — Finding that the plaintiff's expulsion from the union had some effect on the employment he would have obtained — Damages of $1000 awarded — Declaration that plaintiff's expulsion was unlawful, null and void — Injunction granted restraining Executive Committee and every member of union from enforcing the expulsion or interfering with the plaintiff in his use and benefits of membership of the union.

Moe, J.

1 In this matter the plaintiff clamed:– (1) A declaration that the resolution expelling him from the Christian Workers Union, a trade union, is null and void and/or unlawful; (2) An injunction to restrain the executive committee and each and every member thereof from enforcing the said resolution or interfering with his use and enjoyment of the benefits of membership of the said union; (3) Damages for breach by the said Union of his contract of membership with the said union; (4) the sum of $1,200.00 as retirement benefit from the first defendant; (5) Damages for breach of contract by the first defendant; (6) Interest; and (7) Costs.

2 At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, counsel for the first defendant submitted and counsel for the plaintiff conceded that there was no case for the first defendant to answer. The submission was upheld and judgment entered for the first defendant. I now proceed to determine the claim in relation to the second defendant.

3 It is common ground between the parties that the plaintiff was a member of the Christian Workers Union which is a trade union duly registered under the provisions of the Trade Union Ordinance, CAP 142. The second defendants are the trustees of the said union. There was further common ground that on the 27th day of October 1975 the Executive Committee of the union took a decision to expel the plaintiff from the union for a period not exceeding ninety and nine years, and that decision was communicated to the plaintiff by letter of the same date.

4 The authorities show that unless a trade union is given power by its constitution to expel its members, a member of such a union cannot be expelled. It is stated in Trade Union Law (1950) p. 175 Citrine that the rules of a trade union “constitute the contract existing between the members and the union, upon the exact terms of which will depend the objects and powers of the union and the rights and liabilities of both parties.” Quoted with approval in Bonsor v. Musicians' Union [1956] A.C. 104 by Lord Denning who pointed out that the contract by every incoming member of a trade union is one between him and the union whereby he, for his part, agrees to abide by the rules of the union, and the union for its part, impliedly agrees that he shall not be excluded except in accordance with the rules. See also Halsbury's Laws 3rd Edition, para. 614. Now the constitution of the union put before the court makes no provision for expulsion by the union of its members. Consequently, I hold that the purported expulsion of the plaintiff from the union by the executive committee was unlawful and null and void. The plaintiff will have a declaration and supporting injunction accordingly.

5 Again, as shown above, there was a contract between the plaintiff and the Union. It follows that the unlawful expulsion of the Plaintiff from the Union was a breach of that contract. For that breach he is entitled to damages. See Bonsor v. Musicians' Union (ibid).

6 In his statement of claim the plaintiff claimed that as a result of his unlawful expulsion from the union, he has been prevented and/or inhibited from obtaining employment as a waterfront worker and stevedore. Further or in the alternative, the trustees of the union instructed the first defendant to discontinue hiring him on the waterfront thereby inducing a breach of the contract of employment between him and the first defendant.

7 The second defendant had pleaded in para.4 of his defence that the plaintiff was not unlawfully expelled from the said union and his expulsion did not affect his obtaining employment.

8 The plaintiff gave evidence that he is a stevedore and has been a...