Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]

English Constitutional Law

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]
‘Yarra Bank (Trade Union) Meeting’ by Patrick Harford

Executive powers and national security form the footing of this call for judicial review under the argument that changes to civil servant working conditions were executed without due consideration for those affected.

In a relationship with a chequered history it was decided by the Minister of the Civil Service (aka Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher) that since the previous strike actions of key staff within the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had proven destructive, it was necessary to execute instructions to ban any affiliation by government employees with trade unions of any sort, and while this unprecedented move was carried out under legitimate sovereign powers, it directly conflicted with the principle that governmental decisions were first offered to consultation with the trade unions as an inherent duty to exercise fairness when carrying out executive function.

On this occasion the instructions were carried out under art.4 of the Civil Service Order 1982 but orally released within the House of Commons, and so greeted with natural anger and confusion, while the aim of this sudden prohibition was simply to circumvent open discussion in lieu of avoiding future strike actions now considered a significant threat to national security.

When heard at court level the presiding judge had held that the instructions were issued on grounds demonstrating no effort toward consultation and were therefore invalid in their application, while under challenge the Court of Appeal had held that the executive action itself was not exempt from judicial review because the order came from prerogative powers rather than statute, and that despite the latter source forming the premise for most reviews, the Court saw no distinction between a self-executed order and that of an act of Parliament.

In response the defence used by the Minister for the Civil Service relied upon operational safety measures, and how under those circumstances it was felt that the same people responsible for the previous compromises were right to be excluded from using consultation as leverage to create further damage, while it was further argued that any discussions between trade unions and Government would have amounted to the same outcome regardless of protests by those affected. 

This position was further supported by the fact that s.(a) and (a)(ii) of art.4 of the Order in Council 1982 allowed the Minister to create regulations controlling the conduct of those employed, therefore denial of trade union membership lawfully fell within those remits.

When the Court upheld the Minister’s actions, the appellants pressed the issue, whereupon the House of Lords sought to establish whether (i) judicial review was necessary, and (ii) whether the respondents had acted in manner that precluded fairness and a duty to follow precedent, after which it was held that while the avoidance of discussion demonstrated a clear breach of that duty, it was not the responsibility of the courts to determine what constituted a threat to national security and that the executive itself was empowered to prove or disprove itself as to its own actions, all of which led the House to conclude that:

“[W]here a question as to the interest of national security arises in judicial proceedings the court has to act on evidence.”

Francovich and others v Italy [1991]

European Law

Francovich and others v Italy [1991]
‘Azov Steel Mill’ by Konstantin Shurupov

The adoption of EU Directives is a prerequisite for all Member States, and so an when ignorance of the duty to transpose those obligations into the fabric of national and Community law remained unaddressed, the perfect vehicle emerged with which to underline it.

The importance of employee rights is one frequently contested in all forms of commerce, and so when Italy failed to adopt Directive 80/987/EEC, it was the joint action of a group of factory workers that directed the European Community’s attention towards the heart of industry and the anger of those being abused within the market system.

After serving as a loyal employee for an electronics firm, the claimant found himself redundant through the process of liquidation and yet left unpaid for work undertaken and uncompensated for his loss of earnings, and so in a conjoined hearing, Danila Bonifaci and thirty-three other employees (case C-9/90) sought recompense within the same matter.

In the first instance the Pretore di Vicenza and Pretore di Bassano del Grappa both sought a preliminary hearing under art.177 EC, and so the first approach taken by the European Court of Justice was to determine if the respondent’s failure to adjust their domestic laws in line with Directive 80/987/EEC had rendered itself liable to individual enforcement of accountability for payment of lost earnings, or whether the pecuniary losses sustained by the claimants were sufficient enough to award damages based upon state avoidance.

Through an examination of the qualifying criteria for ‘direct effect’ claims, the Court established that this particular case satisfied those terms, and yet noted how the respondent’s non-adoption had failed to fulfil a key element of the Directive requiring proper identification of the companies subscribed to those duties, which left the Commission unable to determine who the two employers were, and how they would be obliged to provide payment or legally defer the onus to the Italian government. 

However the Court also noted how in Simmenthal SpA v Italian Minister of Finance they had held that:

“[D]irectly applicable Community provisions must, notwithstanding any internal rule or practice whatsoever of the Member States, have full, complete and uniform effect in their legal systems in order to protect subjective legal rights created in favour of individuals…”

Which showed that the inability to reflect EU laws will be used as an example when serving the interests of the Community, thus the Court unanimously held that all Member State national courts were held to a duty to redress the inequity of failed transposition, thus full state funded compensation was now due, while reminding the parties that:

“[W]herever the provisions of Directive appear, as far as their subject matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the Directive or in so far as the provisions define rights which individuals are able to assert against the State.”

Adeneler and others v Ellinikos Organismos Galaklos (ELOG) [2006]

European Law

Adeneler and others v Ellinikos Organismos Galaklos (ELOG) [2006]
‘Old Milk Bottle and Grapes’ by Mark Van Crombrugge

In this case workers rights directly related to the powers conferred under a Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive Directive 1999/70/EC were given new protections in instances where fixed-term employment contracts were no longer seen as helpful but in fact deemed contrary to the security of European citizens. 

On this occasion a collective claim was put before the Greek Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis (Court of the First Instance) by eighteen publicly employed staff of the Greek Milk Organisation (ELOG), after the firm failed to renew their fixed-term contracts, and although the aim of the Framework Agreement was to reduce inherent abuses found in all forms of employment, it was intended that unless an employer could demonstrate that repeated fix-term employment contracts served both the employer and employee they were to become contracts of ‘indefinite duration’.

While it is agreed under Community law principles that Member States are expected to transpose Directives within a predetermined period, the Greek government applied for a two year extension under para.2 of Directive 1999/70/EC, however it was not fully transposed until April 2003 under the Presidential Decree No.81/2003 (later superseded by Presidential Decree 164/2004).

For clarity, protections for public employees found in the Framework Agreement were presented in such a way as their employers could continue using fixed-term employment contracts for ‘seasonal purposes’, or in times requiring periodic or temporary needs, as explained in art.21 of Law No.2190/1994, while this was further supported by art.5 of Presidential Decree 164/2004, which provided that successive contracts of employment enjoyed by the same workers were prohibited if contract renewal periods were greater than three months.

In this instance the claimants had worked under contracts lasting no more than eight months, while contract renewals ranged between twenty-two days and eleven months, therefore it was argued that cessation of their employment constituted a breach under the terms of the Framework Agreement and Directive 1999/70/EC inasmuch as they had all been employed for fixed and permanent needs as opposed to those described in art.21 of Law No.2190/1994.

When referred to the European Court of Justice under art.234 EC the Court of the First Instance sought a preliminary ruling as to four questions: 

1. What was the exact date of effect of Directive 1999/70?

2. What was the definition of ‘objective reasons’ as per clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement when determining the renewal of fixed-term contracts?

3. What was the practicality of Presidential Decree 81/2003 when interposed with the terms of the Directive? 

4. Did the limitations of art.21 of Law No.2190/1994 allow for abuses in contrast to the reductive effects of the Framework Agreement?

Having appreciated the somewhat unnecessary aims of the questions it was ultimately  agreed by the European Court of Justice that:

1. The date of effect was that of the publication of the Directive, which was July 1999 and not April 2003.

2. That national legislation cannot overrule the aims of objective reasoning as prescribed within the framework agreement.

3. That clause 5(1)(a) to (c) offered a number of available measures to the Member States in order to reduce contractual abuses.

4. That the same clause again offered sufficient remedies in order to fully support the effects of Directive 1999/70 and the Framework Agreement.

Therefore the Court upheld the claim while reminding the parties that:

“[F]rom the date upon which a Directive has entered into force, the courts of the Member States must refrain as far as possible from interpreting domestic law in a manner which might seriously compromise, after the period for transposition has expired, attainment of the objective pursued by that Directive.”

In re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No.2) (1972)

English Equity & Trusts

Baden's Deed Trusts
‘Il Quarto Stato’ by Guiseppe Pellizza da Volpedo

In what was to become an overly protracted and yet hotly debated case, the question of trust instrument validity and the limiting scope of trust powers, fell upon the English courts to answer, when what appeared at the time was judicial wisdom, later proved a confused doctrine that polluted similar cases in the years following its declaration.

Having become the director of a highly successful M&E company first established in 1927, and as a man of inherent providence, the deceased had taken it upon himself to draft a trust deed in 1941, that would allow his current and former employees to benefit from financial gifts on a potentially recurring basis, while in addition to this their immediate relatives were also to enjoy similar windfalls, as was contained in clause 9(a) of the trust, which read that:

“The trustees shall apply the net income of the fund in making at their absolute discretion grants to or for benefit of any of the officers and employees or ex-officers or ex-employees of the company or to any relatives or dependants of any such persons in such amounts at such times and on such conditions (if any) as they think fit and any such grant may at their discretion be made by payment to the beneficiary or to any institution or person to be applied for his or her benefit and in the latter case the trustees shall be under no obligation to see the application of the money…”

However upon his death in 1960, the appointed executors notified the trustees that the trust was void for uncertainty, as it would be almost impossible to distinguish one employee from another, never mind any relatives known to exist at the time of his passing, which was a position adopted in light of the company’s growth from 110 to 1,300 employees during the preceding years.

Commencing by way of an originating summons in 1967, the trustees argued that clause 9(a) merely represented a power to distribute funds to a class of beneficiaries, while the executors held that the use of the word ‘shall’ created instead, a mandatory trust that once unable to be fully executed, would nullify itself and thus fall within the residual estate.

In the first instance, the Court of Chancery examined the construction of the deed, and found that due to discretionary nature of clause 9(a), the trust conferred a power upon the trustees, and not an immutable instruction that once unfulfilled, rendered the trust void for uncertainty; a statement upon which the executors challenged the findings in the Court of Appeal.

Here, the court referred to In re Gestetner Settlement, in which Harman J had held that when ascertaining the exactness of a trust deed beneficiary class:

“[T]he trustees must worry their heads to survey the world from China to Peru…”

Which was to suggest an immense undertaking for trustees, unless it could be proven that the deed conferred a mere power, in which case, reasonable certainty of the beneficiary class ought then be shown. In light of this precedent, the court subsequently held that as before, the context of clause 9(a) was such that the trustees were afforded discretionary powers, and so held that:

“[C]lause 9 of the deed may properly be construed as the judge did, by holding that it creates a power and not a trust…”

At which point the executors along with the deceased’s widow, pursued their argument before the House of Lords on grounds that clause 9(a) represented a mandatory trust, and that as such, the ruling in the recent Inland Revenue Commissioners v Broadway Cottages directed the decision of the court when it held that:

“[A] trust for such members of a given class of objects as the trustees shall select is void for uncertainty, unless the whole range of objects eligible for selection is ascertained or capable of ascertainment…”

Which it was argued, was now impossible due to the vast number of both former and existing employees, causal employees and extended family members; a contention that left the House allowing the appeal by way of reference back to the Chancery Court for greater clarification, while also holding that in their opinion:

“[T]he trust is valid if it can be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class.”

Once again in 1972, the court reviewed the position on the wording, and thereby meaning of trusts and powers, along with the validity of the trust in relation to s.164 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which stipulated that:

“1. No person may by any instrument or otherwise settle or dispose of any property in such manner that the income thereof shall…be wholly or partially accumulated for any longer period than one of the following…(a)the life of the grantor or settlor; or (b) a term of twenty one years from the death of the grantor, settlor or testator…” 

And so with a thoughtful, albeit exhaustible, examination of the deed, the court held that a discretionary trust did exist, and that despite the 31 years since its execution, such an instrument was valid when called into purpose, which echoed the sentiment of the House when the court further held that the trust was valid on the principle that there were sufficient company records to show, and thereby establish, who was reasonably eligible for the benefit of the funds when distributed by the trustees, upon which the executors challenged the judgment before the Court of Appeal one final time.

Here, the executors argued that unless an individual could not be proven as falling outside the scope of the trust, the trust must fail, while the court reasoned that while operating within the bounds of practicality, the trustees had shown that they were equipped to trace staff records back to the inception of the company, and thereby allocate the majority of employees and their immediate relatives, whereupon the court conclusively dismissed the appeal, while simply holding that:

“[A] trust for selection will not fail simply because the whole range of objects cannot be ascertained.”