from a legal correspondent
Coming hard on the heels of the Rookes v. Barnard judgmont (see Week number five), the ruling by Mr. Justice Marshall in Queen's Bench Division on February 3rd that the Yatermen's union acted illegally in instructing its members to handle barges belonging to J.T. Stratford gives cause for concern, The judge granted an interim order that the the union officals must not cause furthor substantial damage to the company's business and goodwill by continuing to implement the instructions. He refused an application to suspend the order pending an appeal. J.T. Stratford and Son is pursuing a claim for damages against union officals and the court's orders are in force until the hearing of this claim or a further court order.
The significance of this particular judgment is that, unliko the Rookes v. Barnord case, the employer was directly concerned in a dispute with tho union. The experience of Stratford's will encourage other employers to go to the law courts when faced with a demand for union recognition, The judge said that the ‘fatermen's union officials were not protected by the 1906 Trades Dispute Act and that they had acted ‘unlawfully. Thus not only is a union prevented from carrying out activities which have been considered perfectly normal and legal for several decades, but if the judgment's logic is repeated the union will have huge costs awarded against it.
The dispute arises out of the fact that Bowker and King a subsid= iary of the firm refuses to negotiate with the union. Tho firm used the fact that Bowker and King -is a-separate entity to claim that there was no dispute between Stratford's and the union.— despits the fact that J.T, Stratford is chairman of both companies.
:\ ‘NO ENTRY;