AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Secondan action

16th May 1981, Page 20
16th May 1981
Page 20
Page 20, 16th May 1981 — Secondan action
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

CMS LEGAL expert Doug Ainley has uncovered an app case under the 1980 Empl ment Act which has impli tions for haulage contractor The 1980 Act specifically r tricts the scope for law secondary action and the provisions aroused union hi tility.

Thames Television bough1 13-episode series of a Hadmc Productions TV film UnforgeJ ble. After five episodes had bE screened, the Association Cinematograph, Television a Allied Technicians (ACTT) It Thames the series should t have been bought without pr union consultation.

The Appeal Court found tt the union blacking was unlaw and grated an injunction agaii Messrs Hamilton (union or niser) and Bould (shop-stewe at Thames) ordering t blacking to stop and prohibiti future interference. Lord De ning said that this action NA, unlawful because the union IA damaging another employ not its own, which was "a wro for which they had no imrr nity."

Hadmoor Productions st fered substantial financial lc even though they were clea not involved in the dispute t tween Thames and ACTT.

What is important for hauliers affected by seconde• action is that under the previo legislation — the 1974 Tra Union and Labour Relations X — ACTT would probably ha enjoyed legal immunity.

Hauliers who lose delive contracts because the custot er's union complains to the ct. tomer that they were not cons' ted can now seek redress.

Tags

Organisations: Appeal Court, Tra Union
People: Doug Ainley

comments powered by Disqus