86:
Templeman J held that the disciplinaries were unlawful. He noted that "all members of a domestic tribunal where the interests of their own organisation are at stake, have a general inclination to defend the union and its officers against attack from any source." Scargill's role as chairman
135:
87:"undoubtedly gave the impression that the dice were loaded against... the appearance of bias was inevitable." The question is "whether a reasonable man with no inside knowledge might well think that it might be biased." Here it was obvious.
319:
258:
207:
78:. They were disciplined by their union under its rules, prompted by Mr Scargill who chaired the disciplinary panel. They were found in breach and disqualified from office for two years.
132:
172:
221:
387:
116:
235:
144:
334:
63:
109:
158:
102:
184:
262:
211:
296:
196:
75:
381:
345:
330:
308:
59:
162:
272:
148:
74:
Union members gave evidence for the
Sheffield Star in a libel action by Mr
94:
247:
98:
41:
33:
25:
20:
363:Hannam v Bradford Corporation 1 WLR 937, 979
110:
8:
223:Ecclestone v National Union of Journalists
117:
103:
95:
17:
356:
173:Lee v Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain
236:Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union
145:ILO Freedom of Association Convention
7:
285:Roebuck v NUM (Yorkshire Area) No 2
133:European Convention on Human Rights
55:Roebuck v NUM (Yorkshire Area) No 2
21:Roebuck v NUM (Yorkshire Area) No 2
47:Trade union, collective bargaining
14:
388:United Kingdom labour case law
1:
404:
327:
317:
305:
293:
281:
269:
256:
244:
232:
218:
205:
193:
181:
169:
155:
142:
130:
46:
125:Sources on trade unions
159:ASLEF v United Kingdom
185:Edwards v Halliwell
341:
340:
62:case, concerning
51:
50:
395:
364:
361:
297:Esterman v NALGO
224:
119:
112:
105:
96:
18:
403:
402:
398:
397:
396:
394:
393:
392:
378:
377:
372:
367:
362:
358:
354:
342:
337:
323:
313:
301:
289:
277:
265:
252:
240:
228:
222:
214:
201:
197:Hodgson v NALGO
189:
177:
165:
151:
138:
126:
123:
93:
84:
76:Arthur Scargill
72:
12:
11:
5:
401:
399:
391:
390:
380:
379:
376:
375:
371:
368:
366:
365:
355:
353:
350:
349:
348:
339:
338:
328:
325:
324:
318:
315:
314:
306:
303:
302:
294:
291:
290:
282:
279:
278:
270:
267:
266:
257:
254:
253:
245:
242:
241:
233:
230:
229:
219:
216:
215:
206:
203:
202:
194:
191:
190:
182:
179:
178:
170:
167:
166:
156:
153:
152:
143:
140:
139:
131:
128:
127:
124:
122:
121:
114:
107:
99:
92:
89:
83:
80:
71:
68:
49:
48:
44:
43:
39:
38:
35:
31:
30:
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
400:
389:
386:
385:
383:
374:
373:
369:
360:
357:
351:
347:
346:UK labour law
344:
343:
336:
332:
326:
321:
316:
311:
310:
309:Cheall v APEX
304:
299:
298:
292:
287:
286:
280:
275:
274:
268:
264:
260:
255:
250:
249:
243:
238:
237:
231:
226:
225:
217:
213:
209:
204:
199:
198:
192:
188:2 All ER 1064
187:
186:
180:
175:
174:
168:
164:
161:
160:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
134:
129:
120:
115:
113:
108:
106:
101:
100:
97:
90:
88:
81:
79:
77:
69:
67:
65:
61:
60:UK labour law
58:ICR 676 is a
57:
56:
45:
40:
36:
32:
28:
24:
19:
16:
359:
335:trade unions
307:
295:
284:
283:
273:Paul v NALGO
271:
246:
234:
220:
195:
183:
171:
157:
85:
73:
66:regulation.
54:
53:
52:
15:
320:TULRCA 1992
259:TULRCA 1992
208:TULRCA 1992
64:trade union
370:References
29:High Court
331:UK labour
200:1 WLR 130
382:Category
322:ss 62-65
312:2 AC 180
276:IRLR 413
251:IRLR 808
239:2 QB 175
227:IRLR 166
176:2 QB 359
163:ECHR 184
91:See also
82:Judgment
42:Keywords
34:Citation
300:ICR 625
288:ICR 676
248:AB v CD
147:(1948)
37:ICR 676
136:art 11
352:Notes
263:71-96
212:46-61
70:Facts
26:Court
333:and
329:see
261:ss
210:ss
149:C87
384::
118:e
111:t
104:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.