168:
withdrawn, however, in narrower circumstances. In describing them, the draftsman has carefully eschewed the use of the expression “induce a person to break his contract.” Instead, he has throughout used the expression “induce a person to take part in industrial action.” As a matter of ordinary language, no doubt, a non-member who stops work in support of his colleagues can be said to be taking part in their industrial action. But I am inclined to think that this is not the way in which the expression is used in sections 226 to 235. The industrial action there referred to is collective action by members of the union which has called the action with the support of a ballot of its members, a majority of whom have declared that they are prepared to take part in the action. The action must be called by a person specified in that behalf on the ballot paper. There are numerous indications which support the view that the draftsman is drawing a sharp distinction between the act of a union in calling on its own members to take part in industrial action and its acts in calling upon non-members for support by breaking their contracts of employment. The distinction would also help to make sense of an otherwise difficult and perhaps unworkable section 234A. As, however, we have heard no argument on this action, I prefer to express no view on this.
152:
the members who are called upon to take part. The requirement has not been imposed for the protection of the employer or the public, but for the protection of the union's own members. Those who are members at the date of the ballot, and whom the union intends to call on to take industrial action, are entitled to be properly consulted without pressure or intimidation. There is no possible reason to extend the same protection to those who join the union after the ballot. They do so of their own volition and in the knowledge of the outcome of the ballot and of the imminence of industrial action in which they will be called upon to take part. Counsel for the plaintiff criticised the judge for drawing the inference that those who do so probably supported industrial action. Persons who join a union do so for a variety of reasons; a desire to take part in industrial action is only one of them. Perhaps so; but it is an obvious inference that persons who willingly join in such circumstances are not unwilling to take part in the action and it is reasonable to conclude that most of them are probably (to use the wording of the ballot paper) prepared to take part in it.
164:
its members and are intended for the protection of members. Non-members have no right to be consulted before a union calls on its members to take industrial action; indeed, as we have seen, the union must not include them in the ballot. But there is nothing in sections 226 to 235 to limit the union's right to seek to persuade non-members to support it by abstaining from work.
160:
to break their contracts. As I have already pointed out, the immunity is in wide terms. It extends to anyone whom the union induces to break his contract; it is not confined to members. To this extent the immunity is commensurate with the tort. A union may in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute with impunity induce non-members to break their contracts.
172:
immunity in section 226(1). But even if the premise is not right, I think that the same conclusion is nevertheless correct. It would be astonishing if a right which was first conferred by
Parliament in 1906, which has been enjoyed by trade unions ever since and which is today recognised as encompassing a fundamental
163:
This was plainly the law before 1984. In my view it is still the law. The immunities conferred by sections 219 and 220 of the Act of 1992 are still in the widest terms. Sections 226 to 235, which introduce the balloting requirements, are concerned exclusively with the relationship between a union and
183:
I conclude, therefore, that there is nothing in sections 226 to 235 which curtails a union's long accepted right to induce non-members to support the industrial action called by the union by breaking their own contracts of employment. But if this is so, then there is no reason to deny the same right
167:
The language of the statute is striking. The immunity is from liability “for inducing another person to break a contract” (section 219) or from “peacefully persuading any person … to abstain from working” (section 220). These expressions are equally applicable to members and non-members. Immunity is
155:
The judge thought that there would be strange consequences if the union were permitted, without losing its statutory indemnity, to induce persons to break their contracts of employment who could not and did not fall within the constituency of those balloted. A small union, he pointed out, could hold
187:
The judge may also have been influenced by the fact that the union has obtained a large influx of new members by an active recruiting campaign. I am unable to see what objection there can be to such activity. A union is plainly free to campaign actively for new members before it holds the ballot in
159:
So it could; but, with respect to the judge, there is nothing in the slightest strange in that. There has never been any identity between the constituency of those to be balloted and the constituency of those whom in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute the union may with impunity induce
171:
If inducing non-members to support industrial action by withdrawing their labour is to be distinguished from inducing members to take part in the industrial action called by the union, then it is an activity which attracts immunity under sections 219 and 220 but falls outside the withdrawal of the
151:
Parliament's object in introducing the democratic requirement of a secret ballot is not to make life more difficult for trade unions by putting further obstacles in their way before they can call for industrial action with impunity, but to ensure that such action should have the genuine support of
140:
s 226 a union had statutory immunity from suit for inducing any members to strike where it was supported under TULRCA 1992 ss 226–232. The strike itself had to have support of a ballot, not an individual itself taking part, so if a majority were in favour the strike was lawful and no immunity was
127:
section 226A it would hold a ballot, gave them a list of 5000 union members under s 234A. The ballot was 4–7 August 2000 members voted in favour, 622 against. It notified the result under s 234A, with a strike called from 25 August to 4 September. Twenty members had since joined. Mance J held the
110:
It would be astonishing if a right which was first conferred by
Parliament in 1906, which has been enjoyed by trade unions ever since and which is today recognised as encompassing a fundamental human right, should have been removed by Parliament by enacting a series of provisions intended to
188:
the hope that such members will support industrial action. If they become members before the ballot, they must be balloted, even though their views may affect the result of the ballot. I am unable to see why activity which is unobjectionable before the ballot is objectionable after it.
184:
in respect of non-members who have subsequently joined the union. There is simply no objection to a small union, which has the support of a ballot of its own members, from seeking to attract support from non-members.
415:
368:
320:
234:
124:
156:
a ballot of its own members and then set about inducing all the employees of a much larger constituency who had never been balloted to break their contracts of employment.
123:
claimed an injunction from the RMT making new members support a strike after a ballot had been taken. The RMT called on members to strike and notified employers under the
128:
union had no statutory immunity for any inducements to the 69s members who joined after the ballot, but did not lose immunity for the whole strike. The union appealed.
269:
543:
218:
438:
477:
307:
391:
355:
283:
295:
343:
257:
405:
450:
211:
488:
77:
120:
204:
177:
176:, should have been removed by Parliament by enacting a series of provisions intended to strengthen
379:
111:
strengthen industrial democracy and governing the relations between a union and its own members.
17:
96:
73:
40:
537:
473:
92:
245:
88:
London
Underground Ltd v National Union of Railwaymen, Maritime and Transport Staff
426:
331:
173:
137:
144:
103:
196:
462:
141:
lost for inducement of new members joining after the strike ballot.
180:
and governing the relations between a union and its own members.
200:
125:
Trade Union and Labour
Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
136:
The Court of Appeal held there was full immunity. Under
67:
59:
54:
46:
36:
31:
271:Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch
149:
108:
309:Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v Laughton
212:
8:
508:Post Office v Union of Communication Workers
393:British Airways Plc v Unite the Union (No 2)
106:stated in the course of his judgment that:
219:
205:
197:
28:
357:Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF
499:
63:Butler-Sloss LJ, Millett LJ and Ward LJ
7:
439:Laval Un Partneri Ltd v Svenska BAF
25:
344:UCL Hospitals NHS Trust v Unison
284:JT Stratford & Son v Lindley
544:United Kingdom labour case law
406:Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union
296:Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins
1:
102:The case is also notable as
32:London Underground Ltd v RMT
18:London Underground Ltd v RMT
258:Taff Vale Railway Co v ASRS
560:
510:ICR 258, 268 not followed.
451:Demir and Baykara v Turkey
489:United Kingdom labour law
470:
459:
447:
435:
423:
418:ss 20-22, 220-221 and 241
413:
402:
388:
376:
366:
352:
340:
328:
318:
304:
292:
280:
266:
254:
242:
232:
227:Collective action sources
72:
78:fundamental human right
190:
121:London Underground Ltd
113:
506:Lord Donaldson MR in
95:case, concerning the
249:(1853) 2 E&B 216
178:industrial democracy
147:said the following.
484:
483:
84:
83:
16:(Redirected from
551:
520:
517:
511:
504:
394:
358:
310:
272:
221:
214:
207:
198:
55:Court membership
29:
21:
559:
558:
554:
553:
552:
550:
549:
548:
534:
533:
528:
523:
518:
514:
505:
501:
497:
485:
480:
466:
455:
443:
442:(2008) C-319/05
431:
430:(2008) C-438/05
419:
409:
398:
392:
384:
372:
362:
356:
348:
336:
324:
314:
308:
300:
288:
276:
270:
262:
250:
238:
228:
225:
195:
134:
118:
97:right to strike
74:Right to strike
41:Court of Appeal
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
557:
555:
547:
546:
536:
535:
532:
531:
527:
524:
522:
521:
519:ICR 170, 180-2
512:
498:
496:
493:
492:
491:
482:
481:
471:
468:
467:
460:
457:
456:
448:
445:
444:
436:
433:
432:
424:
421:
420:
414:
411:
410:
403:
400:
399:
389:
386:
385:
377:
374:
373:
367:
364:
363:
353:
350:
349:
341:
338:
337:
329:
326:
325:
319:
316:
315:
305:
302:
301:
293:
290:
289:
281:
278:
277:
267:
264:
263:
255:
252:
251:
243:
240:
239:
233:
230:
229:
226:
224:
223:
216:
209:
201:
194:
191:
133:
130:
117:
114:
82:
81:
70:
69:
65:
64:
61:
60:Judges sitting
57:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
38:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
556:
545:
542:
541:
539:
530:
529:
525:
516:
513:
509:
503:
500:
494:
490:
487:
486:
479:
475:
469:
465:
464:
458:
453:
452:
446:
441:
440:
434:
429:
428:
422:
417:
412:
408:
407:
401:
396:
395:
387:
382:
381:
375:
370:
365:
360:
359:
351:
346:
345:
339:
334:
333:
327:
322:
317:
312:
311:
303:
298:
297:
291:
286:
285:
279:
274:
273:
265:
260:
259:
253:
248:
247:
241:
236:
231:
222:
217:
215:
210:
208:
203:
202:
199:
192:
189:
185:
181:
179:
175:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
148:
146:
142:
139:
131:
129:
126:
122:
115:
112:
107:
105:
100:
98:
94:
93:UK labour law
91:ICR 170 is a
90:
89:
79:
75:
71:
66:
62:
58:
53:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
30:
27:
19:
515:
507:
502:
461:
449:
437:
425:
404:
397:EWCA Civ 669
390:
378:
354:
342:
330:
306:
294:
282:
268:
256:
246:Lumley v Gye
244:
186:
182:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
143:
135:
119:
109:
101:
87:
86:
85:
26:
427:The Rosella
416:TULRCA 1992
369:TULRCA 1992
332:BBC v Hearn
321:TULRCA 1992
235:TULRCA 1992
174:human right
138:TULRCA 1992
80:, balloting
526:References
380:P v NASUWT
371:ss 226-234
145:Millett LJ
104:Millett LJ
474:UK labour
454:ECHR 1345
538:Category
463:RMT v UK
383:2 AC 663
361:1 AC 366
313:2 AC 570
299:2 Ch 106
193:See also
132:Judgment
68:Keywords
47:Citation
347:ICR 204
335:ICR 686
50:ICR 170
478:unions
287:AC 269
275:AC 435
261:AC 426
495:Notes
323:s 244
237:s 219
116:Facts
37:Court
476:and
472:see
540::
99:.
76:,
220:e
213:t
206:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.