Tho cracizl test-case of Rookes v. Barnard, in which tho Houss of Lords pronounced judgomont on Tuesday, elst, Jemiary, hes at last boon decided in the wey that trade union activists foared it might be. The Lords have found for Reckes against tho Goa hanes union and have ordered a rotrial to assess tho extent of Rockes' damages. This places the right te strike in erenter jecpordy than it has cover’ been since the Taff Vale Judgement at the beginning of the century.
The cise atose after iockes Icft the ANSD at the end of 1955. His colleaguizs put pressure on to rejoin in order to preserve the closed shop, “then this failed they told the BOAC that they would strike if he were not dismissed. He was discharged in March of 1956; 2nd he sued the Union's officials, Barnard and others, for damages, charging that they had intimidated the BOAC into diszissing him, Mr, Justice Sachs found for Hookes, and he was awarded £7,500. The Court of Appeal set this aside. But Rookes appenload against this decision and it is the verdict on this appeal which was given on Tussday, last week.
The implication of this verdict is thet strikos which ere in brgach of contract, and strikes which take place without “appropriate notice in accordance with,...contracts of employment," together with strikes in pursuit of an illegal end, are all illegal.
Naturally the TUG pees need to press for some amending legislation to patch this huge gap in tha legal protection of trade unions, Bat this is-not an easy ma Son. and any such pressure opens up large oppor— tunities for Labour's enemies to attempt to drive home even more restrictive measures against TU freedom, The Times, in an editorial On this case, says:
" weslha time is sure drawing near when some Government should
attempt the revision of the ee law, in the interocate: of
clarity as well as tistics can find the courage to grasp