Chappell v Times Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,LORD JUSTICE GEOFFREY LANE |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0122-1 |
| Date | 22 January 1975 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0122-1
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Stephenson and
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Revised
Appeal by plaintiffs from order of Mr. Justice Megarry on 20th January 1975.
Mr. PETER PAIN, Q.C., and Mr. JULES SHER (instructed by Messrs. Kershaw, Gassman & Matthews) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Plaintiffs.
Mr. BRIAN NEILL, Q.C., Mr. J.R.A. RAMPTON and Mr. SHIELD (instructed by Messrs. Slaughter and May) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Defendants.
There is a serious dispute in the newspaper industry. On the one side there is a trade union called the National Graphical Association (N.G.A.). On the other side there are the publishers of national newspapers, such as The Evening News, The Telegraph and the Sun, who are members of the Newspapers Publishing Association (N.P.A.).
There are six trade unions in this industry. Five of those unions came to an agreement last September with the employers, N.P.A. But N.G.A. did not. The other five would not sit at the same table with the N.G.A. So the N.P.A. made an agreement with the five only. Under that agreement the men's wages were to be raised to nearly £85.50 a week, thus making them some of the most highly paid industrial workers in the country. That agreement was to last for a year. The N.P.A. had to negotiate separately with the sixth union, N.G.A. They offered to raise the wages of the members of the National Graphical Association to about £97.30 a week. But the N.G.A. refused to accept this offer. The reason for this refusal was about differentials. The N.G.A. said that their members had always received 12.5% more than members of other unions. But this offer of £97.30 a week only gave them a differential of 12.14%. In order to get a differential of 12.5% the members of N.G.A. ought to get £97.70 a week. That is, an additional 40p. a week. The N.P.A. felt that they could not concede this claim. I will not go into the details, but it would seem that it would upset their agreement with the other five unions and lead to it being re-opened.
In the circumstances the N.G.A. took industrial action with a view to persuading the publishers to concede their demands. The differential did not affect all the members of the N.G.A. They had 7,000 members in the Industry, but only some 1000 wereaffected by the differential. Nevertheless all 7,000 members would join in any industrial action requested by the union. The reason is because the N.G.A. is a closed shop. No one can enter the industry - for their particular skills - unless he is a member of the union. This means that the members of the union have to do as the Council of the union ask them to do.
Last December the N.G.A. started industrial action to enforce their demand. On Friday, 13th December, and Tuesday, 17th December it was taken against the Evening News. Not many men took an active part in it. On each occasion it was only the men in the composing room. They stopped work at a very important time, and thus made others idle. For instance, on Tuesday, 17th December, they held a meeting for one hour from 0.900 to 10.00 in production time. That put everything back and 143,000 copies were lost.
Efforts were made to settle the dispute, but these failed. On Tuesday, 14th January, 1975, the N.G.A. decided to resume industrial action. Their announcement was given in a press release, which I will read:-
National Graphical Association
13.17 Jan 14 DG 19/4
The National Graphical Association announce, with regret, that it has now been left with no alternative but to resume industrial action against N.P.A. newspapers in support of its claim for a restoration of differentials.
This decision was taken after protracted talks with the N.P.A. under the auspices of the conciliation and arbitration service (to whom the N.G.A. expresses its appreciation for their assistance) and after the rejection by the N.P.A. of a series of compromise proposals put forward by the union.
"The latest of these proposals was for an immediate meeting between the N.P.A. and all six unions with a commitment, on the part of the N.P.A., that if the unions agreed, they would restore the differential to craftsman members of all the unions. Even this was rejected.
The N.G.A. believe that the only conclusion that can be drawn from this continual rejection, by the N.P.A., of reasonable and sensible proposals for a solution, is that the N.P.A. are determined to humiliate the union and its members, by forcing them to surrender the principles inherent in their claim.
The N.G.A. wish to make it clear, that the responsibility for this dispute, rests entirely with the N.P.A.
"Now that it has been compelled to resume industrial action, the union will prosecute the dispute with all the resources at its disposal until a satisfactory conclusion is found. The N.G.A. is confident of the full support, loyalty and co-operation of all its members in the dispute. That was a clear announcement by the union that they proposed to resume industrial action. It meant that they were going to get some key men to strike at important times, thus rendering others idle and inflicting great losses on the publishers. And this at a time when they must have known that the publishers were in a parlous financial state anyway.
The press release was made at 13.17 on Tuesday 14th January. That very night industrial action was taken against The Sun newspaper. The men employed on stereo work left work to attend a chapel meeting during production times, thus causing a delay of printing time of one hour and 35 minutes. It meant that the newspaper lost 168,744 copies at a loss of £6099.
On the next day. Wednesday, 15th January, the publishers met and sent the telegram which is complained of in this action. It is addressed to Mr. Bonfield, the secretary of the N.G.A. at their headquarters. I must read the whole of it:
"In the light of the resumption of the immensely damaging and disruptive action by the N.G.A. last night" - that was on the Tuesday night - "the N.P.A. Council has no option but to seek firm assurances from the N.G.A. that instructions for further action of this character have been totally withdrawn. The Council also requires an undertaking that normal uninterrupted production will be restored in all N.P.A. Offices. In order to enable you to comply with these requests and to appreciate the full gravity of the situation the N.P.A. is prepared to allow until 9 a.m. on Friday next the 17th January for the receipt of these assurances. It will be a matter of great regret to the N.P.A. that failure to give these assurances will mean that the Newspaper Publishers in membership of the N.P.A. will regard all your members employed as having by action or implication accepted instructions to infringe their personal Contracts of Employment and thereby to have terminated their own engagements. It remains our hope that your members will accept the offer of improved pay with effect 1st October 1974 that is still available == Full Council of the N.P.A. Copies of this statement have been provided for all N.G.A. Chapels."
Summarising it, it comes to this, that the publishers were saying that unless N.G.A. called off their disruptive actions, the publishers would treat all the members of the N.G.A. as having "sacked" themselves.
The telegram was sent off on Wednesday, 15th January. We were told that it was not received by anyone in authority until Thursday morning, 16th January. As soon as the N.G.A. received that telegram, their Council took strong exception to it. But the Council did not take proceedings themselves about it. Yet on that very day, Thursday, 16th January, six of the members of N.G.A. issued a writ against five publishers, members of the N.P.A. Those six men sought an injunction to restrain the publishers from terminating their employment. Events moved rapidly. In order to get an injunction it was necessary, under section 17 of the new 1974 Act, to give notice to the publishers of the application for an injunction. This notice was given. That very evening Counsel for the plaintiffs went before Mr. Justice Megarry. Counsel for the publishers was there too. The Judge heard it for an hour or more. It was then adjourned to the next day. He heard it for the whole day on Friday. He gave his decision on Monday morning. He refused to grant the men an injunction. Yesterday, Tuesday, Mr. Pain appealed on their behalf to this Court. We have heard it at once, yesterday and today.
Meanwhile, however, whilst the legal proceedings have been going on, the N.G.A. have been continuing their industrial action. On the night of Wednesday, 15th January, they took action against the Dally Telegraph and The Sun. On the night of Thursday, 16th January, against The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Financial times. On the night of Friday, 17th January, against The Guardian and The Financial Times. On the night of Saturday, 18th January, against the News of the World and The Observer. In each case the newspapers lost many thousands of copies and the financial loss to them, taken together, was over £150,000. A truce has now been arranged for the time being.
It is important to remember that it is not the N.G.A., thetrade union, which is bringing this action. It is six of the members and they are bringing it in their personal capacities We have been referred to two men as typical, Mr. Chappell and Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...see Section C, below in this chapter. 95 [1972] Ch 305. 96 A point noted by Lord Denning MR in Chappell v Times Newspapers Ltd , [1975] 1 WLR 482 at 501 (CA) [ Chappell ]. 97 See, for example, Jones v Lee , [1980] ICR 310 (CA) (dismissal of teacher without due process enjoined); Irani v Sou......
-
Table of cases
...185 Chaoulli v Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35 .......................................348 Chappell v Times Newspapers Ltd, [1975] 1 WLR 482, [1975] 2 All ER 233, [1975] ICR 145 (CA)...................................................568 Chappell v United Kingdom, [1989] 1 FSR 617 (ECH......
-
Table of Cases
...120 Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35 ...................................... 238 Chappell v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1975] 1 W.L.R. 482, [1975] 2 All E.R. 233, [1975] I.C.R. 145 (C.A.) ........................................... 413 Chappell v. United Kingdom, [1989] 1 F.S.......
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...see below this Chapter, section C. 84 [1972] Ch. 305. 85 A point noted by Lord Denning M.R. in Chappell v. Times Newspapers Ltd ., [1975] 1 W.L.R. 482 at 501. 86 See, for example, Jones v. Lee , [1980] I.C.R. 310 (C.A.) (dismissal of teacher without due process enjoined); Irani v. Southampt......