Privy Council reserves decision on lawsuit over unions having bank accounts

FIVE law lords have reserved their decision in a challenge over the Registration, Recognition and Certification Board’s (RRCB) decision to deny a former bank worker access to the Industrial Court because his trade union did not have a bank account.

Lords Reed, Sales, Stephens and Ladies Simler and Wise presided over the appeal of former RBC Royal Bank employee Mitoonlal Persad and Sanctuary Workers’ Trade Union against a decision of the Appeal Court in November 2023.

In their judgment, Justices of Appeal Gregory Smith (now retired), Malcolm Holdip and Vasheist Kokaram ruled that High Court judge Joan Charles got it wrong when she upheld the trade union and Persad’s lawsuit.

Persad wanted to pursue a trade dispute against his former employer over his dismissal/termination of his employment.

In November 2019, the Ministry of Labour issued a certificate of unresolved dispute and referred the issue of whether Persad was in good financial standing with the union to the board.

Persad and the union sued the board after it ruled that Persad was not in good standing because the union did not have a bank account.

Charles had to determine whether the board was allowed to introduce a practice note requiring a union to have a bank account.

She ruled Section 34(3) of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) states that the board should be satisfied that a union followed sound accounting practices and that the worker had made union contributions at least two months before initiating a trade dispute to find that a worker is in good standing.

She said the requirement that a trade union must operate with a bank account was illegal and held that the board’s requirement that Persad and the union comply with a practice note “was to debar any trade union from operating without a bank account," when this was not prescribed by the Industrial Relations Act (IRA).

Charles ruled that the IRA did not give the board the power to create regulations altering the terms of Section 34.

She also ruled that the board acted unfairly without allowing Persad and the union to be heard.

In their ruling, the Appeal Court said it had not been proven that the RRCB used the practice notes as a fetter on its discretion and that the judge’s criticism of the lack of consultation with the union after the decision was unfounded.

The Appeal Court also held there was no breach of natural justice and in overturning Charles’ decision, ruled it was satisfied the union knew the lack of a bank account could be considered a breach of sound accounting practices.

In overturning Charles’ ruling, it also found the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The law lords had to determine the jurisdiction point and whether the Appeal Court was wrong to find the RRCB did not act in breach of natural justice or fetter its discretion in deciding the union’s good standing.

In arguments in support of the appeal, Anand Beharrylal, KC, said the Appeal Court approached the matter “wrongly.”

He said the board had to ask the union for an explanation on the bank account, but just asked for verification.

“They are saying you must have a bank account, but at no time it is suggested this is going to put them in breach of sound accounting procedures and practices.

“That has to be fairly flagged.” He also contended the union was never told the lack of a bank account was a problem or a that an account was a mandatory requirement.

“We are saying they did fetter their discretion. The High Court was right to rule in the way it did.”

Attorneys Kiel Taklalsingh, Stefan Ramkissoon and Omar Sabbagh also appeared with Beharrylal for Persad and the union at the Privy Council.

Robert Strang, instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys, represented the RRCB.