Introduction

The case of Unite the Union v. Alec McFadden ([2021] EWCA Civ 199) addresses a pivotal legal question: Does the doctrine of res judicata apply to the disciplinary proceedings of a trade union? This case involves two disciplinary actions initiated by Unite the Union against Alec McFadden, concerning allegations of misconduct within the union's ranks.

Parties Involved:

• Appellant: Unite the Union
• Respondent: Alec McFadden

Key Issue: Whether res judicata, a legal doctrine preventing the same issue from being litigated more than once, is applicable to trade union disciplinary processes.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision, favoring Alec McFadden. The court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata does not extend to the disciplinary processes of trade unions. Consequently, Unite the Union was permitted to initiate a second set of disciplinary proceedings against McFadden despite the prior actions.

Key Findings:

• The initial disciplinary action was nullified by the Assistant Certification Officer (ACO) as it was based on an inapplicable rule.
• The second disciplinary proceedings were initiated under different rules, which the court found did not trigger res judicata.
• The court clarified the distinction between trade union disciplinary bodies and independent judicial or regulatory tribunals.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references pivotal cases that shape the understanding of res judicata:

• Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100: Established that parties cannot raise issues in subsequent proceedings that could have been addressed in earlier ones.
• Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2014] AC 160: Affirmed that cause of action estoppel is absolute concerning all points essential to a cause of action.
• Coke-Wallis v Institute of Chartered Accountants [2011] UKSC 1: Highlighted that res judicata applies to professional regulatory bodies established by statute or Royal Charter.
• Christou v London Borough of Haringey [2013] EWCA Civ 178: Distinguished between independent adjudicative bodies and internal disciplinary processes within organizations.

These cases collectively informed the court's determination that trade union disciplinary bodies do not possess the same juridical standing as independent tribunals or regulatory bodies, thereby excluding them from the confines of res judicata.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's reasoning centered on the nature and authority of trade union disciplinary bodies versus established tribunals:

• Nature of Adjudication: The court differentiated between bodies with statutory or independent adjudicative authority and internal disciplinary panels of organizations like trade unions.
• Jurisdiction and Independence: Trade union panels, while adhering to internal rules, lack the independence and statutory jurisdiction characteristic of regulatory tribunals subjected to res judicata.
• Public Interest: Emphasized the necessity for unions to address serious allegations, such as sexual harassment, without being unduly hindered by procedural doctrines like res judicata.

The court concluded that, since Unite the Union's disciplinary proceedings are governed by internal rules and not by an independent statutory framework, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for trade unions and their disciplinary procedures:

• Disciplinary Autonomy: Trade unions retain the autonomy to conduct multiple disciplinary actions against a member, provided each is under different provisions or rules.
• Finality of Proceedings: The absence of res judicata in this context ensures that serious misconduct can be addressed comprehensively through the union's disciplinary mechanisms.
• Legal Clarity: Establishes clear boundaries between internal disciplinary processes of organizations and judicial or regulatory proceedings, preventing the overreach of legal doctrines into internal governance.

Future cases involving similar issues will reference this judgment to delineate the scope of res judicata concerning internal organizational procedures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Unite the Union v. McFadden judgment is a landmark decision that clarifies the boundaries of res judicata concerning trade union disciplinary proceedings. By affirming that res judicata does not apply to internal disciplinary actions of trade unions, the court has empowered unions to uphold their standards and address misconduct without undue legal constraints.

This decision underscores the distinction between legally sanctioned tribunals with statutory authority and internal organizational bodies. It ensures that trade unions can effectively manage their affairs and maintain internal discipline, contributing to the broader landscape of labor relations and organizational governance.

Legal practitioners and trade unions alike must take note of this ruling, as it delineates the scope of legal doctrines in internal organizational contexts and reinforces the autonomy of trade unions in managing their disciplinary processes.