ACAS v Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Diplock,Lord Salmon,Lord Edmund-Davies,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Keith of Kinkel |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1977 |
| Year | 1978 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 14 December 1977 |
[1977] UKHL J1214-1
Lord Diplock
Lord Salmon
Lord Edmund-Davies
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Keith of Kinkel
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was referred the Cause Grunwick Processing Laboratories Limited and others against Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and others, That the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 7th as on Tuesday the 8th, Wednesday the 9th and Thursday the 10th, days of November last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service of Cleland House, Page Street, London, S.W.1, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 29th of July 1977, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, and that the Petitioners might have the relief prayed for in the Appeal or such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Grunwick Processing Laboratories Limited, Cooper and Pearson Limited and Cobbold Computer Centre Limited lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 29th day of July 1977 complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
This appeal is concerned with one facet of an industrial dispute which has engendered a good deal of political heat and unfortunately still continues to do. The facet with which this House has to deal does not involve your Lordships in forming, let alone expressing, any views as to the merits of the conduct of either of the major parties to the dispute, Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. ("Grunwick") and the Association of Professional, Clerical and Computer Staff ("Apex"). In this appeal all that falls to be decided is a naked question of law, as to the true construction of a fasciculus of sections in the Employment Protection Act 1975, numbered 11 to 16, which deal with the recognition of trade unions by employers for the purpose of collective bargaining, and in particular as to the meaning of section 14(1).
The appellant, the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service ("Acas") is a statutory body set up under section 1 of the Act. It is charged with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations and "in particular of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining". Its members are appointed by the Secretary of State, in practice because of their experience of industrial relations, and the method of selection is designed to include representatives of both employers and trade unions. It is expressly provided by Schedule I, paragraph 11 that Acas shall not be subject to directions of any kind from any Minister of the Crown as to the manner in which it is to exercise any of its functions. It is thus a body that may properly be described as independent as well as expert in industrial relations.
The circumstances in which Acas became involved in the dispute between Grunwick and Apex and what led up to the report it made on 10th March 1977 are set out in considerable detail in the judgment of Lord Widgery C.J. and in the judgments of the Court of Appeal. It would be tedious to recapitulate them, more especially as such of them as are essential to an understanding of the point of statutory construction that is in my view decisive of this appeal can be stated very shortly.
Grunwick's business consists of processing colour photographs for customers. Its work force is largely composed of immigrants of Asian decent from Uganda but a considerable number of students are engaged temporarily during the summer vacation which coincides with Grunwick's busiest period. On 23 August 1976 one of the students was dismissed for disciplinary reasons. Other workers walked out in sympathy and by the end of the month there were 91 members of the regular work force on strike as well as 46 students. The rest of the regular work force remained at work.
Many of those on strike joined Apex which then approached Grunwick with a request to negotiate on their behalf. Grunwick declined to do so and after some violence on the part of some the strikers, Grunwick, on 2 September 1976, dismissed them all.
On 15 October 1976 Apex referred to Acas what is described in section 11 of the Act as a "recognition issue"; that is to say, a request to be accorded recognition by Grunwick for the purpose of collective bargaining on behalf of all Grunwick's weekly paid staff. "Collective bargaining" is defined by section 126(1) as meaning negotiations connected with one or more of the matters specified in section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. The matters so specified include terms and conditions of employment of workers and the engagement or non-engagement or termination or suspension of employment.
The one and only issue referred to Acas was whether Apex ought to be recognised by Grunwick as representing all its weekly paid workers (including those dismissed on 2 September 1976 who wanted to be re-employed) for the purpose of collective bargaining, or whether it ought not. No question of recognition of any other trade union was involved.
Acas's duty when a recognition issue is referred to it is laid down by section 12(1) as follows:
"� the Service [sc. Acas] shall examine the issue, shall consult all parties who it considers will be affected by the outcome of the reference and shall make such inquiries as it thinks fit."
This involves a three-fold process, (1) examination, (2) consultation and (3) inquiry; but as regards the third, the subsection imposes no requirement as to the scope or the nature of the inquiries which Acas must undertake or as to the manner of conducting them. The apparently unfettered discretion of Acas as to these matters is, however, curtailed by section 14. It reads thus:
"14.�(1) In the course of its inquiries into a recognition issue under section 12 or 13 above the Service shall ascertain the opinions of workers to whom the issue relates by any means it thinks fit, but if in any case it determines to take a formal ballot of those workers or any description of such workers, the following provisions of this section shall apply.
(2) In making arrangements for any such ballot the Service shall have regard to the need for securing that every worker invited to take part in the ballot has an equal right and a fair opportunity of voting, and that the vote cast by any individual in the ballot will be kept secret.
(3) Before taking any such ballot the Service shall give notice to every employer and union concerned in the reference or application, including every union known to the Service to have members among the workers proposed to be invited to take part in the ballot, of�
( a) the description or descriptions of workers proposed to be invited to take part in the ballot:
( b) the question or questions on which the ballot is proposed to be taken; and
( c) the manner in which the ballot is proposed to be taken;
and the Service shall consider any representations made by any such employer or union with respect to the proposals.
(4) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) above, any such ballot may be conducted in such manner as the Service thinks fit.
(5) Where a formal ballot has been taken in accordance with this section the Service shall arrange for�
( a) the question or questions on which the ballot was taken; and
( b) the results of the ballot on that question or on each such question, to be notified to every employer and union concerned in the reference or application, including every union known to the Service to have members among the workers invited to take part in the ballot.
(6) An employer who is notified in accordance with subsection (5) above of the results of the ballot and who has workers among those invited to take part in the ballot shall arrange for those results to be notified to them".
Incidentally, section 14(1) in my view makes it plain that the workers to whom the issue relates are not included in the parties who are to be the subjects of "consultation" under section 12(1); they are the subjects of "inquiries" to be made under that subsection.
In order to carry out its duties under section 14(1) of ascertaining the opinions of workers to whom the recognition issue referred to them by Apex related, Acas proposed to address a questionnaire to them. For this purpose Acas sought to obtain the names and addresses of all the weekly paid employees of Grunwick including those who had been dismissed on 2nd September 1976 and were available for re-employment as well as those who were still in work. It obtained from Apex the names and addresses of all those workers who had joined that union, 110 in number, but consisting almost entirely of those who had been dismissed. It asked Grunwick to supply the names and addresses of all the workers still on its payroll; Grunwick, however, was contending that former employees who had been dismissed ought not to receive the questionnaire. This claim Acas contested and pending the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (HA) (Nigeria)) v Secretary of state for the Home Department
... ... Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration ... ...
-
United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
... ... It is called the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. ACAS for short. That tribunal decided against the small trade union. It ... Lord Salmon put it well in Grunwick v. ACAS (1978) 2 Weekly Law Reports at page 313 : ... 56 ... ...
-
Crédit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council
...some general as opposed to a merely statutory discretion as to the relief which it will grant. It is true that in Grunwick Ltd. v. ACAS [1978] AC 655 at 695 Lord Diplock said that "where a statutory authority had acted ultra vires any person who would be affected by its act if it were valid......
-
United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
...ACAS is fundamental to a proper understanding of its statutory functions. ACAS, who, as my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock said in Grunwick v. ACAS [1978] A.C. 655 at p.686, may properly be described as a statutory body independent as well as expert in industrial relations, is empowe......