The parties sought the court's opinion as to the validity of the election of a candidate ('T') to the Council of Executives of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers ('RMT'). The rules required such election to be conducted in accordance with the Single Transferable Vote ('STV') system as described in Rule 13(1). At the first stage of the election, T gained 747 votes, another candidate ('G') 713 votes and a third candidate ('P') 332 votes. P's votes were then redistributed in accordance with the voters' second preferences. In respect of 44 the preferences were exhausted. Reallocation of the remainder resulted in 874 being attributed to each of T and G. T was elected "due to having more votes at the first stage of the election". Members represented by the claimant ('AB'), who claimed that the election of T was invalid, contended that the manner in which the tie between T and G was broken was not authorised by the RMT Rules and was contrary to the express provisions of Rule 13(1). The defendant ('CD'), representing all those members of RMT who claimed that the election was valid, submitted that: (i) the rules, as supplemented by custom and practice, did provide for the resolution of the tie by the method adopted; (ii) the result of the election, having been duly declared, could not now be re-opened; and (iii) the construction and application of Rule 13 as contended for by AB was untenable. The independent scrutineer required by the Rules and by s.46 to s.53 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was a subsidiary of the Electoral Reform Society ('ERS'), which had produced booklets (the latest in 1997) setting out rules as to how to conduct elections by STV. RMT also had a Standing Orders Committee paper setting out the procedure for counting ballot papers.
To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.