¹ See Rogaly, , Grunwick, (1977). A court of inquiry under Lord Scarman reported in 1977 (Cmnd. 6922). The legislation was to be found in the Employment Protection Act 1975. ss. 11–15.Google Scholar

² See Jenkins, . Newspapers. The Power and the Money (1979)Google Scholar ch.3. For the distinctions between the pre-entry and post-entry closed shop, and the recent policies of the NGA, see Dunn, “The Law and the Decline of the Closed Shop in the 1980s,” in Fosh and Littler (eds.) Industrial Relations and the Law in the 1980s. Issues and Future Trends (1985). See too Sisson, , Industrial Relations in Fleet Street, (1975), ch.5.Google Scholar

³ The assets of the NGA were sequestrated, and the union itself had to pay heavy fines, because it refused to comply with injunctions ordering the union to cease unlawful industrial action. The union also had to pay substantial sums by way of damages. See Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd. v. NGA (1982) [1984] I.R.L.R. 397, 399 per Caulfield J.: “Broadly stated, the law is that the closed shop is unlawful, and no one can be compelled to become or be prevented from being a member of a trade union.” Sec further Wedderburn, “The New Policies in Industrial Relations Law” in Fosh and Littler, op. cit.

⁴ In addition to the NGA, many workers on the distribution and clerical staff of newspaper production are organised within Society of Graphical and Allied Trades 1982 (SOGAT 82).

⁵ Jenkins, op. cit., p. 91. In the prophetic words of the author, “He [i.e. Mr. Murdoch] became convinced that nothing could be done about Fleet Street's labour relations unless one proprietor had the industrial strength to fight the unions and fight them alone.”

⁶ For one analysis, which suggests that the planning went back to 1980. see Benton and Holingsworth, New Statesman, 7 February 1986. Also Paterson, The Spectator, 1 February 1986.

⁷ Financial Times. 19 February 1986. And sec infra.

⁸ The Economist. 25 January 1986.

⁹ 4 February 1986. See Appendix.

¹⁰ See Taylor, . “The Union No-Strikc Force,” Management Today, April 1985. Croall and Bowers. “Selective Collective Bargaining: are Single Union Deals the Way Forward?“ Personnel Management (forthcoming).Google Scholar

¹¹ Agreement between the EETPU and Toshiba Consumer Products (U.K.) Ltd.

¹² Note the reservation expressed with regard to this form of dispute settlement by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service in its Annual Report for 1984 (p. 39).

¹³ In this respect therefore they differ from the agreements previously negotiated by the union in the electrical contracting industry, which are accepted to he legally binding. However neither the Toshiba agreement nor the subsequent agreement with Sanyo (1982) expressly state an intention that the agreement should not be legally enforceable. The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, s. 18(1), states that a written agreement which contains a provision (however expressed) that the parties intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract will defeat the presumption which otherwise would apply to the effect that the agreement should not be legally enforceable. It might be open to argument that the formality of the agreement and the language used provide the necessary provision in favour of the intention to create a legally binding contract.

¹⁴ Simmons v. Hoover Ltd. [1977] I.C.R. 61, in which the argument that the contract was suspended during industrial action was rejected by Phillips J.

¹⁵ At the end of the day. it would appear that no agreement was actualy signed between the parties. Negotiations ended on 11 February 1986. when the EETPU accepted certain instructions from the TUC. including a ban on further recruitment of members at News International, and further negotiations with the company. See infra.

¹⁶ O'Brien v. Associated Fire Alarms Ltd. [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1916; cf. United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority v. Claydon [1973] I.C.R. 128.

¹⁷ Cresswell v. Board of Inland Revenue [1984] I.R.L.R. 190.

¹⁸ Cf. Loudon v. Crimpy Crisps Ltd. [ 1966] I. T. R. 307, where it was held to be redundancy when the introduction of new machinery led to the dismissal of workers, on the ground that they lacked the manual dexterity necessary for operating the new machines. See generally Grunfeld, , The Law of Redundancy, 2nd ed., (1980), pp. 201–203.Google Scholar

¹⁹ E.g., in particular, the U.S. A., where a strike which is in response to an “unfair labor practice” by the employee leaves intact the employee's right to reinstatement at the end of the dispute. See infra.

²⁰ This is the effect of E.P.C.A. 1978, s.82, taken in conjunction with s.92. The full complexities of the legislation here are explored in Simmons v. Hoover Ltd., n.14, supra.

²¹ The events in this section draw heavily on reports between 25 January and 29 March 1986 in The Guardian. Financial Times. The Times and The Daily Telegraph.

²² See Express Newspapers Ltd v. MacShane [1980] I.C.R. 42. and Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] I.C.R. 161.

²³ See Broome v. DPP.[1974] I.C.R. 84 and Kavanagh v. Hiscuck [1974] I.C.R. 282.

²⁴ The meaning of trade dispute was restricted by the Employment Act 1982. s.18. See Ewing, . “Industrial Action: Another Step in the ‘Right’ Direction” (1982) 9 I.L.J. 209 at pp. 215–218.Google Scholar

²⁵ Trade Union Act 1984. s. 10. See Mutton, . “Solving the Strike Problem” (1984) 12 I.L.J. 212Google Scholar

²⁶ 1984 Act. s.ll.

²⁷ Employment Act 1980. s.17. See infra.

²⁸ TULRA.s. 15, as amended by the 1980 Act, s. 16.

²⁹ The best account of this action is in The Guardian, 15 February 1986.

³⁰ 1982 Act.s.15.

³¹ Ibid., s.16.

³² Though this is not true of the orders against the UCW which did in fact comply—Financial Times, 14 February 1986.

³³ See(1984)22B.J.I.R. 123.

³⁴ Financial Times, 11 February 1984.

³⁵ The Times, 15 November, 5 December, 12 December 1984 and see Kidner. (1986) I L.S. 18.

³⁶ See Ewing, , “The Strike, the Courts and the Rule Books” (1985) 14 I.L.J. 160. at pp. 170–172.Google Scholar

^36a On the consequences of the sequestration, see News Group Newspapers Ltd. v. SOGAT, The Times, 26 March 1986.

³⁷ The account in this section draws heavily on reports in the Financial Times. 2 December 1985 to 28 February 1986.

³⁸ TUC Rules and Standing Orders (1982).

³⁹ EETPU. Submission by the EETPU in reply to charges made under Rule 13(a) by the General Council on 30th January 1986. Appendix 10.

⁴⁰ See Salmond and Heuslon on the Law of Torts, 18th ed. by Heuston and Chambers (1981). p. 424; cf. C. Evans Ltd v. Spritebrand Ltd [1983] I W.L.R. 317.

⁴¹ [1985] 2 W.L.R. 1081 (noted [1985] C.L.J. 374).

⁴² Porter v. NUJ[1979] I.R.L.R. 404.

⁴³ It is submitted that the position is sufficiently unclear that an interlocutory injunction would be readily available to the plaintiff should such an action be brought.

⁴⁴ We refer lo the American material to show the limited protection offered by British labour law. We do not wish to suggest that the American law should be adopted here, though this is not to deny that some aspects of it may not be inappropriate in thinking about future developments. But caution is prudent!

⁴⁵ See Morris, (ed). The Developing Labor Law. 2nd ed. (1983) p. 220. Section 8(a)(3) provides that it is an “unfair labor practice” for an employer “by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to … discourage membership of any labor organisation.”Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., at p. 563.

⁴⁷ First National Maintenance Corp v. NLRB. 452 U.S. 666 (1981).

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ Morris, op. cit. p. 838.

⁵⁰ See. for example. Social Security Act 1975. s. 19 (unemployment benefit). See Social Security Bill 1986. cl.39. It is to be noted however that in the Wapping dispute unemployment benefit was eventually paid.

⁵¹ See Morris, op.cit., p. 1008.

⁵² This is a tactic which was facililated by the decision of (he House of Lords in Dimhlebv & Sons Ltdl v. NUJ[1984] I All E.R. 75I: cf. Examile Ltd v. Whittaker [1977” I.R.L.R. 312.

⁵³ See Financial Times. 20 February 1986.

⁵⁴ The Conference was held specifically to consider union responses to the consultative document— TUC, Industrial Relations Legislation (1986).

⁵⁵ GMBATU. “Industrial Relations Legislation” (1986) p. 8.

⁵⁶ APEX. “Comments on TUC Consultative Document on Industrial Relations Legislation” (1986). p. 3.

⁵⁷ See Wedderburn, . “The New Politics of Labour Law” in McCarthy (ed.) Trade Unions. 2nd ed. (1985). 497 at pp. 517–518. who warns against this very danger.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ SOGAT 82. “Response to TUC Consultative Document on Industrial Relations Legislation” (1986) pp. 4–5. But such a step need not embrace SOGAT's complementary proposal that the protection should apply only where a ballot has been held to approve the action.

⁵⁹ APEX. op. cit., pp. 5–6.

⁶⁰ SOGAT 82. op. cit., p. 4.