Cold store gets order against seven dockers
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The legal fight by a cold storage firm, to stop dockers "blacking" lorries crossing picket lines at its store, moved from the Industrial Court to the Chancery Division of the High Court on Tuesday.
The judge, Mr Justice Megarry, was asked to put a temporary ban on all picketing outside the East London premises of Midland Cold Storage.
Mr Alan Campbell, QC, submitted that the ban should remain until the dispute between the company and dockers could be "resolved in an objective and detailed way."
Mr Campbell said he was alive to the need to protect the liberty of the individual but if one was over-zealous in maintaining the liberty of the pickets one came up against the rights of others. The picketing which was taking place was unlawful and intimidatory, said counsel.
There was no lawful way in which picketing could be done, having regard to the background of the case, the facts already proved in the National Industrial Relations Court and the declared intentions of some of the dockers.
"It is important to make an order which is clear and can be obeyed," said Mr Campbell.
On the previous Friday, Midland had obtained a temporary order from the National Industrial Relations Court directing seven dockers to stop blacking or threatening to black, nationally, lorries and firms crossing the picket lines. The dockers are claiming the right to work at Midland.
In the High Court proceedings, based on the law which existed before the passing of the Industrial Relations Act, the company claims the dockers' conduct in interfering with its business and employees, who are members of the Union of Shop. Distributive and Allied Workers, is unlawful.
It alleges conspiracy to injure the company, intimidation, breaches of statutory duty, common law nuisance by unlawful picketing and the procurement of breaches of contract.
The High Court action is being brought to safeguard the company's position by obtaining an injunction against alleged unlawful acts which the Chancery Court has jurisdiction to restrain.
Official Solicitor's challenge
The Official Solicitor has already challenged the Industrial Court's power to make the order, which it has made to restrain the seven dockers.
As alternatives to a temporary ban on all picketing, the company is seeking' temporary orders against seven named dockers as members of the unofficial joint shop stewards committee of the Port of London Workers, and the committee itself, in terms similar to the order made by the Industrial Relations Court. None of the seven dockers, or the committee were present or represented at the High Court hearing, which is continuing this week.
Order of restraint
On Friday the NIRC had granted an order against the seven named dockers preventing them, or others acting on their behalf, from threatening to black nationally or at any particular dock any vehicle which entered or left the Midland Cold Store for the purpose of carrying goods. The order also banned implementation of any blacking threat; but the court did not grant an application for a similar order against the unofficial dockers shop stewards committee.
The general manager of the cold store, Mr Robin Bray, had told the NIRC that the stewards committee was the power behind the throne, going its own way and pushing the unions aside.
But the court ruled that though the committee was an influential pressure group its objects did not include the regulation of relations between workers and employers — a prerequisite if it were to be an "organization of workers" against whom an order could be obtained.
Earlier the court had heard that the store was in danger of having to close down because of the picketing, alleged to have been carried out unlawfully.
The Transport and General Workers Union; the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers Union and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers had been made a party to the action but no orders were sought against any of them.
The Court's president, Sir John Donaldson, said the order would be effective pending the full hearing of • Midland's claim or further order.
Sir John continued: "We think we should warn Mr Steer and Mr Turner (two of the named dockers) that if the threatening goes on with new people doing the threatening they might find themselves faced with an allegation that the new persons doing the threatening are performing the task on behalf of Mr Steer and Mr Turner in their capacity as secretary and chairman of the joint shop stewards' committee.
We express no view whether such an allegation would succeed. It would depend upon what evidence was produced, but we think it right to make it clear that there does seem to be a substantial risk that such an allegation might be made."
When it resumed on Monday this week the NIRC was told by Mr Campbell, for Midland, that dockers picketing the cold store had already broken the previous Friday's order of the court. But, he said, the company was not at this stage asking the court to enforce its orders — which could lead to an application for the dockers to be jailed.
The company was considering whether to ask the'NIRC to commit the dockers, said Mr Campbell, adding that "it is not to be assumed that anyone would disobey an order of the High Court (to which application was also being made), but we reserve the right in due course to ask this court to enforce Its order".
Stating the court's reasons for making an order against the seven dockers, Sir John Donaldson emphasized that every point was agreed by the three members.
The court found that the picketing and threats of blacking had been extremely damaging to the company's business, the monthly average intake of goods having fallen from 1900 tons to 61 tons. The object of the picketing was to persuade the company to dismiss its employees and replace them with dockers There was evidence, said. Sir John, that the pickets were engaged in an unfair industrial practice of inducing or threatening to induce breaches of contract by dockers, suppliers, customers and hauliers.
The evidence of inquiry agents established an overwhelming case, he said.
The judgment maintained that the Court of Appeal's decision in the Chobham Farm case represented only the proposition that there had been insufficient evidence to justify the NIRC's committal of three dockers to prison. The Appeal Court decision had not laid down a rule that peaceful picketing was lawful even if it constituted an unfair industrial practice. The Industrial Court's ruling was that peaceful picketing was capable of being an unfair practice. '