“I hasten to add that the Association does not wish to be deemed the recognised majority union in respect of those units of doctors in relation to which MPATT (Medical Practitioners Association of TnT) has applied to the Recognition Board for recognition.”

Jeremie was further told: “The effect of the proposed amendment would be that the Association would acquire the exclusive right to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of employees of the RHAs.

“The consequences of this measure are twofold.

“Firstly, members of the bargaining unit would be bound by collective agreements concluded by the Association.

“Secondly, employees who might wish to have another union represent them collectively would be saddled, for the time being, with the Association.

“However, an important feature of the amendment is that it recognises the ability of another union, in the ordinary course, to apply to the Recognition Board to replace the Association as the recognised majority union.

“It is also significant that the proposed amendment does nothing to compel workers to join the Association, nor does it prevent them from belonging to any union of their choice.

“The question is whether the proposed amendment violates any constitutional right.”

Young suggested: “Freedom of association appears to be the only right which is potentially affected.”

Speaking from a purely legal point of view, he added: “It is now well settled that freedom of association guarantees only the right to join and belong to a trade union, as well as the right not to join and not to belong to a trade union.

“It does not protect the right to strike or to engage in collective bargaining.

“It is also well settled that the goals of attaining bargaining agent status and bargaining collectively are not protected by freedom of association.”

The struggle by PSA, led by its recently re-elected president Jennifer Baptiste-Primus, for the union to be recognised as the majority union for RHA workers and health workers whom it previously represented and who have transferred to the RHA, has been a long, drawn-out one.

It has involved protests and threats of more protests.

Jeremie was further told: “There is nothing in the proposed legislation which compels anyone to join the Association or prohibits anyone from joining any other trade union of their choice.

“Any complaint about the proposed amendment will per force have to do with alleged infringements of a right to engage in collective bargaining through a union of one’s choice.

“But there is no right to collective bargaining guaranteed through a union of one’s choice.”

He continued: “The Association is not given a monopoly over representation at the RHAs.

“It obtains representative status only, until replaced by another union which can demonstrate support among the majority of workers in the bargaining unit.

“Furthermore, what the proposed legislation does is simply to continue the exclusive bargaining agency which the Association now enjoys and has enjoyed under the Civil Service Act, long before the 1976 Constitution came into force.

“Given that the intention and practical effect of the RHA Act is to transfer the workforce to the RHA, it is not unreasonable to expect that long established bargaining rights will also be transferred.”

Jeremie was further told: “In sum, therefore, it is the Association’s position that the proposed amendment does not infringe the Constitution.”

Since there was no positive response, Mendes wrote to Jeremie again on November 24 enquiring whether “any decision has been made concerning the constitutionality of the proposed provision granting the PSA recognition status for persons employed by the RHA”.

PSA officials told Mirror this week that they are still waiting on a response from AG Jeremie.