Collective Bargaining in UK Law

It is self-evident that any right to be recognised conferred by domestic law will have to be defined by rules which identify which unions should be recognised by which employers in respect of which workers and for what purposes.

It is enough to say that if there is more than one purpose actuating a combination, liability must depend on ascertaining the predominant purpose. If that predominant purpose is to damage another person and damage results, that is tortious conspiracy. If the predominant purpose is the lawful protection or promotion of any lawful interest of the combiners (no illegal means being employed), it is not a tortious conspiracy, even though it causes damage to another person.

A combination with such an object is not unlawful, because the object is the legitimate promotion of the interests of the combiners, and because the damage necessarily inflicted on the Appellants is not inflicted by criminal or tortious means and is not "the real purpose" of the combination.

I would also venture to endorse in strong terms what was said by the judge in paragraph 23 of his judgment, that the CAC was intended by Parliament to be a decision making body in a specialist area, that is not suitable for the intervention of the courts. Judicial review, such as is sought in the present case, is therefore only available if the CAC has either acted irrationally or made an error of law. There was a faint attempt before Elias J to argue irrationality.

Recognition problems have troubled industrial relations for very many years. They have given rise to disputes not only between unions and employers but also between union and union. They can constitute a major obstacle to the maintenance of industrial peace and to the improvement of industrial relations. In an inter-union quarrel they can make a mockery of the epithet "collective" when applied to bargaining.