Mace v National Union of Mineworkers (Trade Union Membership)

Trade union rules are construed reasonably and purposively, having regard to their authorship, purpose and intended readership. Their application may require an assessment of the practical reality of an official’s working arrangements, rather than a formal focus on the body which paid remuneration.

Under section 47(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a candidacy condition is not unreasonable where it excludes an objectively ascertainable class defined by the union’s rules, rather than a class selected at the union’s discretion. A requirement that candidates for union president are members of the executive committee met that condition.

Mr Mace appealed from the Certification Officer’s decision concerning the 2012 election for National President of the National Union of Mineworkers.

The Certification Officer dismissed his complaint that Mr Wilson was ineligible to be nominated. The Officer found that Mr Wilson was an Area Official performing duties for NUM (Scotland Area), although his remuneration was paid through NUM (Scottish Area). The Officer also held that the executive-committee membership condition in rule 14.C was protected by section 47(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The Officer nevertheless set aside the 2012 election because the Area-nomination and 30% requirements unreasonably excluded candidates. Mr Mace challenged the dismissal of his eligibility complaint and sought a different enforcement order.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Certification Officer did not err in holding that Mr Wilson was eligible for full membership and nomination under rules 5.A(iii) and 14.C.

   Trade union rules were to be construed reasonably and purposively, not as legislation. The Certification Officer was entitled to consider the reality of the Scottish arrangements. NUM (Scottish Area) and SCEBTA operated with NUM (Scotland Area) as parts of the Scottish structure, sharing membership, leadership and interests. Mr Wilson performed Area Official duties for all NUM members in Scotland. His contract with NUM (Scottish Area) was the mechanism by which he was paid for duties undertaken for NUM (Scotland Area).

2. The subsequent transfer of Mr Wilson’s contract to NUM (Scotland Area), his redundancy payment, and his exclusion from the superannuation scheme did not demonstrate an error of law. The Certification Officer was entitled to find an implied employment relationship with the Area and to conclude that Mr Wilson fell within the intended meaning of rule 5.A(iii).

3. The Certification Officer also correctly held that the requirement in rule 14.C that a presidential candidate be a member of the NEC was saved by section 47(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Non-NEC members formed an objectively ascertainable class, determined by the rules and not by whom the union chose to exclude. The condition was therefore deemed not unreasonable, notwithstanding the narrow pool of eligible candidates.

4. The challenge to the enforcement order failed. Mr Wilson had been validly nominated in 2011, and disapplying the 30% rule would not establish that Mr Mace was the only valid candidate. Mr Mace’s later suspension was not caused by the unlawful 30% requirement. Complaints concerning elections other than the 2012 election were outside the proceedings.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed Mr Mace’s appeal from the Certification Officer’s decision of 18 July 2013.
• Certification Officer: dismissed the complaint that Mr Wilson was ineligible, but declared that the 2012 election breached sections 46(1) and 47(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because of the Area-nomination and 30% requirements. The Officer set aside the election and ordered a fresh election.