Collective Labour Relations―Judicial Abstention and Intervention
| Published date | 01 March 1966 |
| Author | R. P. Grime |
| Date | 01 March 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb01119.x |
MAR.
lN?G
NOTES
OF
CABES
199
morally speaking, ought not to be decisive on the question of
cruelty.,
So,
if
indeed
it
be proper
to
differentiate between the
conduct
of
wives who are under-sexed and that of husbands similarly
afflicted, this distinction should not be crucial to the petitioner’s
case. Nevertheless
B.
(L.)
v.
B.
(R.)
may well become significant
in
the development of
a
trend to the contrary.
NAOMI
MICHAELS.
COLLECTIVE
LABOUR RELATIONB-~UDICIAL ABSTENTION
AND
INTERVENTION
‘‘
MOST workers want nothing more of the law than that
it
should
leave them alone. In this they can be said to display an instinct
which is fundamental to British industrial relations.” Thus
Professor Wedderburn opens his recent Pelican book on labour
law.1 The courts, however, seem recently to have shown
a
dis-
inclination
to
be governed by this fundamental instinct. The
celebrated case of
Roolces
v.
Barnard,2
whatever else
it
may show,
at
least shows that the House of
Lords
may now be prepared to
develop
a
law to govern some aspects
of
industrial relations.
Perhaps Professor Kahn-Freund’s period
of
judicial
“
abstention
”
a
is drawing to a close.
the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Davies and Russell
L.JJ.)
was faced with
a
direct attempt to use the machinery of the
law in the settlement of an industrial dispute. While the decision
may fairly be characterised
as
“
abstentionist,” some of the dicta
in the case appear to indicate
a
willingness to enter the industrial
arena. The plaintiffs, whose business in part was the erection of
exhibition stands, had sought
an
interlocutory injunction to restrain
a
number
of
shop-stewards from inciting their employees to carry
out an unofficial ban on overtime. An interim injunction waa
granted by Melford Stevenson
J.
which restrained the defendants
‘‘
from inducing
or
procuring the servants of the plaintiffs to break
their contracts of service with the plaintiffs by restricting overtime.”
The term of the contracts alleged to have been broken was to be
found in
a
Working Rule issued by the National Joint Council
for
the industry. The defendants appealed.
Three possible arguments were available to the defendants
:
that
the Working Rule did not
form
a term of any employee’s contract
of employment; that an upofficial bnn on overtime did not consti-
tute
a
breach of the Rule; and Anally that the Trade Disputes Act
1900
prevented the courts from issuing an injunction anyway,
It
In
Camden Emhibition
and
Display
Ltd.
v.
Lynott and
Another
1
K.
W. Wedderburn,
The Worker and the
Law
(106G)
(Penguin
Booke).
2
l9G4]
A.C.
1120;
19G4]
9
W.L.R. 260;
[1004
1
All
E.R.
307.
8
Leo
Flondere
and
E
legg
(ede.),
The System
0)
Industrial Relations
in
Great
4
[19Gti]
3
W.L.R.
703; [19G6]
3
All
E.R.
28.
Britain,
Chop.
2.
To continue reading
Request your trial