Trade union, professional negligence

some1gr8

Does a trade union representative fall under the definition of a professional in order to bring a claim of professional negligence against the trade union? If so, is the duty of care that a trade union representative owes to its members the same as that of a solicitor to his client for example?

Peregrinus

There's no special category of "professional negligence" the term just refers to negligence on the part of someone who is acting in the course of his profession.

The duty of a trade union representative to a union member is probably not the same as that of a solicitor to his client, since the solicitor/client relationship is fairly unique. That's not to say that a TU official couldn't be negligent in the peformance of his duties, and that someone who suffers loss as a result couldn't sue, but it may not help to try and shoehorn this into a solicitor/client analgy.

Think about what a TU official is supposed to do. Think about what this guy actually did. Think about the harm that resulted, and to whom, and whether it was foreseeable, etc.

NUTLEY BOY

As Peregrinus says above.

One issue occurs. You could sue a trade union representative personally for their professional negligence.
However, I am not aware if an individual union member can sue the union if it is an unincorporated association.

I am aware of a House of Lords decision entitled Bonsor -v- Musicians' Union (194??). I can't turn it up just now. I think that the plaintiff member of the union was found entitled to take limited action against the union (over a technical membership issue) but not receive damages. However, I think that this may have been partially due to the fact that statute law created some quasi-incorporated status for a union. I don't know the Irish position but that would need to be researched before proceeding.

NUTLEY BOY

P.S.

I have been pointed to 1955 3 ALL E R 518 as a reference for Bonsor but I can't check it just now !

I have been told that the ultimate majority view was that Bonsor could sue the union for damages as they were to be considered as a legal entity distinct from the individual members.

What I still don' t know is if this decision was based on a statutorily created creature or not and if such reasoning would apply in Ireland.

some1gr8

In my case, the union intentionally shared my info with the company and provided incorrect information.

rock22

In the course of representing you, the union would almost certainly have to share your name with the company. Are you saying that the union shared other information with the company outside of that necessity? Did you suffer as a consequence of that sharing? Did the union knowingly misrepresent the information or had they the incorrect information ?

Mr. Incognito

The short answer is no.

Trade union officials have a right of representation. I have no idea why and it is a stupid damaging archiac law. The average trade union official knows about as much about employment law as the lad down the pub.

They are not professional trained, qualified and most importantly for every time they screw up insured. They also have an enormous conflict of interest in most cases being paid by the entity they are supposed to be representing against.

The sooner trade unions are abolished the better. I have seen untold damage caused by unqualifed people screwing up and there's no come back for the worker.

rock22

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The short answer is no.

Trade union officials have a right of representation. I have no idea why and it is a stupid damaging archiac law. The average trade union official knows about as much about employment law as the lad down the pub.

They are not professional trained, qualified and most importantly for every time they screw up insured. They also have an enormous conflict of interest in most cases being paid by the entity they are supposed to be representing against.

The sooner trade unions are abolished the better. I have seen untold damage caused by unqualifed people screwing up and there's no come back for the worker.

Extraordinary!. Can you back up any of this?

hullaballoo

Are you asking someone to back up their personal opinion or

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As Peregrinus says above.

One issue occurs. You could sue a trade union representative personally for their professional negligence.
However, I am not aware if an individual union member can sue the union if it is an unincorporated association.

I am aware of a House of Lords decision entitled Bonsor -v- Musicians' Union (194??). I can't turn it up just now. I think that the plaintiff member of the union was found entitled to take limited action against the union (over a technical membership issue) but not receive damages. However, I think that this may have been partially due to the fact that statute law created some quasi-incorporated status for a union. I don't know the Irish position but that would need to be researched before proceeding.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

P.S.

I have been pointed to 1955 3 ALL E R 518 as a reference for Bonsor but I can't check it just now !

I have been told that the ultimate majority view was that Bonsor could sue the union for damages as they were to be considered as a legal entity distinct from the individual members.

What I still don' t know is if this decision was based on a statutorily created creature or not and if such reasoning would apply in Ireland.

An early Irish Supreme Court case R (IUDWC) vs Rathmines UDC (1920) IR 260, and later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the TSSA vs CIE [1965] IR 180 case also affords unions here the quasi-corporate status and confirmed a union has locus standi to sue, but, more importantly can also be sued in it's own name. However the High Court Murphy vs Roche & Ors [1982] IR 656 case seems to suggest a member can not maintain an action against their own union.

some1gr8

They told me that they would only support me if i gave them assurance that i wouldn't take legal route( i.e wrc and labour coury) and my emails that i sent to union in confidence, were forwaded to the HR.

rock22

some1gr8 wrote: »

They told me that they would only support me if i gave them assurance that i wouldn't take legal route( i.e wrc and labour coury) and my emails that i sent to union in confidence, were forwaded to the HR.

Did they specifically state that you couldn't proceed to WRC/Labour court?
Most cases at these forums are represented by union officials so it is hard to understand why they would exclude aa route they would generally rely on.

rock22

hullaballoo wrote: »

Are you asking someone to back up their personal opinion or

No I am not.
Read the post from Mr. incognito again and look for statements of facts - which I am asking him if he has evidence for.
It never does any harm to read the posts

Cork Lass

some1gr8 wrote: »

They told me that they would only support me if i gave them assurance that i wouldn't take legal route( i.e wrc and labour coury) and my emails that i sent to union in confidence, were forwaded to the HR.

I’m confused by this post. I think they must have meant a solicitor when they said legal - TU’s will not take on a case if a solicitor is already involved. The WRC or LC would be normal routes for a TU to take. Correspondence between a TU and it’s member is totally confidential so no idea why it would be forwarded to HR.

Irishphotodesk

some1gr8 wrote: »

They told me that they would only support me if i gave them assurance that i wouldn't take legal route( i.e wrc and labour coury) and my emails that i sent to union in confidence, were forwaded to the HR.

You are entitled to change your mind and opt to go legal route, even if you told union official you are not going to take legal route.