Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Section 4 of the Act, which is founded on by the defenders, provides—“Nothing in this Act shall enable any Court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the breach of any of the following agreements,” namely, and one of the agreements is—“Any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union ( a) to provide benefits to members.” The question is, whether the money here in dispute falls within the words “benefit to members.”

The rules of the association provide, in the first place by rule iii—which deals with the objects of the Union—that one of the objects, 7, is “To provide a burial fund for deceased members.” I think it is quite plain, so far as that rule is concerned, that the provision is one under which it is intended to apply the money in order that a deceased member may get a decent burial. The next rule which requires to be considered is rule xviii, which is headed “Burial Benefits.” Sub-section 1 provides that “No member shall be entitled to burial benefit until six calendar months from the date of admission.” Then sub-section 2 provides that “Member of twelve months' standing, and who shall have paid twelve months contributions, and who joined after 1st October 1901, shall be entitled to funeral benefit.” Sub-section 7 provides that “A receipt must be given by the party receiving the burial allowance”; sub-section 8 that “Each member may nominate, in writing, the relative or representative to whom the burial allowance is to be paid”; and subsection 11 that “Should he fail to nominate, and there being no dependants, the branch committee shall see to the decent internment of his remains. Where there is neither wife nor children the branch committee shall decide to whom the balance is to be paid.” It seems to me that it is a fair inference that in the event of a member dying and leaving a wife or children they would be the parties to whom the benefit money would fall to be paid.

In the forms appended to the rules the “Form of Application for Burial Allowance” reads—“This is to certify that… a member of your branch, died here on the … day of … 19. and the burial allowance provided by the Union is now claimed on his behalf.” The form of receipt bears to be a receipt for money due to the representatives of the deceased member; and the form of nomination is—“I … hereby nominate … to receive the burial allowance to which I may be entitled at my death.”

It seems to me on a fair construction of these rules that the term “burial benefit” or “burial allowance” is really a benefit to a member. A provision for respectable burial made by anyone, and perhaps particularly by people in the class of life to which the members of the trade union belong, is one to which they attach very considerable importance. I think that the burial benefit in this case was really a benefit to a member, and that accordingly the action is excluded by the terms of section 4 of the Act of 1871. I am therefore for affirming the Sheriff's interlocutor, sustaining the plea of bar, and dismissing the action.

Lord Dundas—I am of the same opinion. I think the learned Sheriff's interlocutor is right. He considers, and I agree with him, that the burial benefit sued for is a benefit to a member within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. Upon a construction of the defenders' rules the burial benefit seems clearly to be described and dealt with as a benefit to a member. Thus rule 18 prescribes (clause 1) that “no member shall be entitled to burial benefit until six calendar months from the date of admission,” and (clause 2) that “members of twelve months' standing … shall be entitled to funeral benefit” according to a given scale. Clause 8 of the same rule authorises each member to nominate in writing the relative or representative to whom the burial allowance is to be paid, and by the form of such nomination the member appoints his nominee “to receive the burial allowance to which I may be entitled at my death.” The very fact that a member may appoint—I presume for value received if he so chooses—a representative to whom the allowance is to be paid seems to me to indicate that it is a benefit to himself as a member. Plenty of other instances could be cited from the rules. Even apart from the construction of the rules, I think the benefit is in substance and fact a benefit to the member. It is a prudent and provident investment of his money, and apart from pecuniary advantage has surely a personal value as an increment to the comfort, happiness, and self-respect of the investor. If then the burial benefit is as I hold a benefit to the member, there is an end to the appellant's case. I agree with what your Lordship has said as to the decisions referred to.

In my judgment we should dismiss the appeal and affirm the interlocutor of the learned Sheriff.

Lord Salvesen—I agree with your Lordships that the question to be decided here is whether this funeral benefit, as it is called in the rules, can be described as a benefit to a member. If it can be so described, then the action is excluded by section 4 of the Act referred to.

I confess I have much more difficulty than any of your Lordships on this point, because I find it difficult to understand how the payment of a sum of money after a man's death, for the purpose, no doubt, of providing for his funeral expenses, can ever be described as a benefit to a member. It seems to me that it is a benefit to those who succeed to his estate if he has any, and who are relieved to the extent of the funeral allowance of the necessity of expending his estate in providing him with a decent burial.

It is true that the rules describe the benefit in a manner that is consistent with the view that the framers considered it a benefit to the member. I do not know that that would be conclusive, but at the same time my doubts are not sufficiently strong to induce

Page: 765↓