Rice Case : Judge Overrules Jury and Disallows Damages
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I N the High Court, last Friday, Mr. Justice Devlin disagreed with part of the jury's findings in the Rice case and disallowed the jury's awards of damages.
Thomas Rice, an ex-employee of the London Transport Executive, was suing the Executive and four members of the executive of the
Transport and General Workers' Union for damages as a result of his dismissal. The case indirectly raises the question of the legality of the closed shop.
The jury found that:— (1) It had been a condition of Rice's employment with the United Omnibus Co. before he joined the London Passenger Transport Board, that he should not be dismissed unless he was guilty of misconduct, or became unfit or redundant until he reached the age of 65 years.
(2) The terms of his contract with the Board were the same as those applying to his service with the United Omnibus Co., and that he would be entitled to an ex-gratia payment at the age of 65, or earlier if he retired through ill health or redundancy.
(3) Mr. A. F. Papworth and Mr. J. W. Jones. of the T.G.W.U., had induced the Board to end Rice's employment. and, with two other members of the Union's executive, Mr. Wall and Mr. Edwards. had conspired to induce the Board to,discharge Rice, and conspired with the Board to cause his employment to cease.
, (4) The four members of the Union knew that the Board would be committing a breach of its statutory duty and a breach of the terms of Rice's employment.
(5) A trade dispute was in progress. but the plaintiff and his fellow workers in the bus section were not taking part in it.
The jury awarded £325 damages, plus the ex-gratia payment against the Board, and £850 and costs against the four members of the Union.
After hearing legal arguments by counsel for the three parties, Mr. Justice Devlin disallowed the amounts awarded by the jury. Conspiracy to bring about Rice's dismissal had, he said, not been proved, and there was no evidence to show that there was a contract to retain the services of the plaintiff up to the age of 65.
He dismissed, with costs, the case against the four members of the T.G.W.U. He gave judgment for Rice against the L.T.E. for the sum provided for his retirement.