Reaffirming critical role of unions

ON FEBRUARY 27, the Court of Appeal gave a significant and instructive decision for all trade unions in the country. The judgement reinforces the position of the High Court that any official of a trade union, acting on behalf of its members, as directed by the union, is clothed in immunity from defamation and slander, under section 6 of the Trade Disputes and Protection of Property Act.

This decision of the Appeal Court was given as a result of a claim for slander and libel brought by the principal of St Madeleine Secondary School against a former president of TTUTA. This was the third time that TTUTA and its former president were successful in defending claims brought by this individual.

As far back as 2013 and continuing over the ensuing years, TTUTA would have received numerous complaints from its members at St Madeleine Secondary about the management style of the principal and the deleterious effect it was having on teachers’ mental health. There were also complaints about financial mismanagement at the school and the lack of accountability.

The plight of the members worsened over the years and reached its nadir in 2017. Acting on the instructions of the union’s general council, the association through its president at the time made a series of public statements highlighting the state of affairs at the school, calling on the Ministry of Education and the Teaching Service Commission to initiate an investigation into the complaints of mismanagement.

Arising out of these statements a claim for defamation and slander was filed against the president of TTUTA in the High Court in March 2017. This claim was dismissed in January 2018. This decision was subsequently appealed. However, before that appeal could be determined at the Appeal Court, another claim was filed in the High Court, contending that when the former president spoke in 2017 and 2018 about issues affecting TTUTA members at the school, he did so in a personal capacity and not as president of TTUTA.

The 2018 appeal was then withdrawn to allow the new claim to proceed. In October 2020, the High Court dismissed this claim and found that it was “patently obvious that the defendant was always acting in his capacity as the president of TTUTA under the direction of the general council, or with its approval.”

This decision was appealed and thus necessitated the Appeal Court’s decision last week. In dismissing the claim, the court held that “it was legitimately within the powers of the trade union and its president to raise the issues he did, call for investigations and conduct advocacy, including protest, for action to be taken.”

It further noted that “all of the statements concerned either the welfare of the teachers or raised questions about the administration of the school. It was a patent trade union function advocating on behalf of its members who are, without doubt, affected by what they may perceive to be maladministration of a school to which they are assigned to teach.”

It emphasised that “it would be legitimate for a trade union to raise those issues with the relevant authority such as the Ministry of Education or the Teaching Service Commission, to speak about it publicly and to stage lawful protest action as they deem fit. All of these activities are properly resident within its powers as a trade union.”

This decision of the Appeal Court is significant and instructive as it clearly illustrates that TTUTA, and by extension all trade unions, can legitimately and freely raise issues affecting its members without having to be concerned about any legal implications for its advocacy.

TTUTA wishes to reassure all its members and the national community that it will continue to act resolutely in the defence and interest of all its members and education generally, without fear or favour, to pursue justice, as was done in this situation.

TTUTA will continue to promote the cause of education and will not be intimidated, deterred or repulsed from carrying out its legitimate function as the recognised majority union for teachers. It is patently clear that these claims brought against the association and its former president were attempts to prevent TTUTA from acting in the defence and interest of its members.

While the association was always confident of defending these claims, its attorneys ensured that their confidence was not misplaced. The association wishes to put on record its profoundest appreciation to attorneys Ravi Nanga, Vonetta Adams and Sushma Gopeesingh for their tremendous advocacy in this matter.