Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company v Veitch
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Date | 22 December 1939 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
2ND DIVISION.
Ld. Jamieson.
Trade Union—Order by officials to members to abstain from handling traders' goods—Action of interdict against officials—Whether excluded by Trade Disputes Act, 1906—Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 47), secs. 1, 3, 4 (1) and 5 (3).
Two officials of a trade union ordered dock labourers at a harbour, members of the union, to refuse to handle the goods of certain traders. In a petition for interdict presented by the traders against the two officials on the ground that they and certain rival traders had conspired to injure the trade of the petitioners, held that the action was not excluded either (1) by sec. 4 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, which prohibits actions of tort against trade unions, in respect that the prohibition left unaffected the liability of the officials of trade unions to be sued as individuals for wrongs committed by them, even although acting in their official capacity, or (2) by secs. 1 and 3 of the Act, which render non-actionable acts done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a "trade dispute," in respect that "trade dispute" did not include a dispute between rival traders, but was limited to a dispute between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, and that in the present case no such dispute existed or was contemplated.
Interdict—Right to interdict—Order by trade union officials not to handle traders' goods—Intent to injure—Conspiracy—Interference with trade—Trade Union—Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 47), sec. 3.
Two officials of a trade union ordered the dock labourers at Stornoway, who were members of the union, to refuse to handle consignments of yarn or unfinished tweeds consigned to, or dispatched by, a company in the Island of Lewis, who, contrary to the practice of certain other manufacturers of Harris tweed in the island, used imported and not island made yarn in manufacturing tweed. The company sought interdict against the two officials on the grounds (1) that they and certain of the tweed manufacturers had illegally conspired together to interfere with and damage the petitioners' legitimate right to trade; and (2), founding on sec. 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, that, even if there had been no conspiracy, the respondents had wilfully interfered with and obstructed the petitioners' contractual relations and their liberty to exercise their trade.
The Court (diss. Lord Mackay) refused interdict;holding (1) that, while the respondents in combination with certain manufacturers had interfered with the petitioners' trade, their action was not illegal, in respect that the intention of the combination was not to injure the petitioners but to further the interests of the members of the trade union and of the industry as a whole, and that the method adopted, viz., the persuasion of the dock labourers not to handle the petitioners' goods, was not per se illegal; and (2) that sec. 3, by rendering non-actionable acts of interference with trade where done in contemplation and furtherance of a trade dispute, did not mean that all other acts of interference were actionable, and, accordingly, that the respondents' action, not beingper se illegal, did not become so merely because it was detrimental to the trade of the petitioners and known, it might be, to the respondents to be so.
Lord Mackay dissented on the ground that it had been proved that the respondents and certain of the millowners had combined together with the intention of destroying the trade of the petitioners.
Sorrell v. SmithELR, [1925] A. C. 700, followed,and authorities discussed.
The Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company, Limited, 42 Point Street, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis, and eight other manufacturers and merchants of Harris Tweed in the island presented a petition to the Court of Session against (1) John Veitch, Glasgow, Scottish Area Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and (2) William Mackenzie, Stornoway, Branch Secretary of the Union, craving the Court "to suspend the proceedings complained of, and to interdict, prohibit and discharge the respondents from instructing, procuring, persuading or inciting, or continuing to instruct, procure, persuade or incite members of the Transport and General Workers' Union at Stornoway, to refuse to load or unload on to or from vessels in the port or harbour of Stornoway consignments of yarn or unfinished tweeds consigned to or dispatched by the petitioners, or any of them, or from interfering in any manner or way with the consignment to or dispatch by the petitioners, or any of them, of consignments of yarn or unfinished tweeds consigned to or dispatched by them at the port or harbour of Stornoway; and to find the petitioners entitled to the expense of this application, and of the procedure to follow hereon against the respondents; and to grant interim interdict."
On 24th February 1938 the Lord Ordinary (Jamieson) granted interim interdict, which he continued on 26th March 1938, and, after sundry procedure, he thereafter allowed the parties a proof before answer of their averments.
From the proof it appeared that the name "Harris tweed" was originally applied only to tweed which had undergone all the processes of manufacture by hand in the Outer Hebrides. In 1911 a trade mark, called "the stamp" was granted by the Board of Trade to apply to tweed satisfying this condition, but in 1934 the trade mark was extended to tweed manufactured from island mill spun yarn as well as to tweed manufactured from island hand spun yarn. Some manufacturers, however, among whom were the petitioners, imported their yarn, or part of it, from the mainland, and, while they could not use the trade mark, they used the name "Harris tweed." There were thus three classes of manufacturers in the islands, those who used island spun yarn only, those who used mainland spun yarn only, and those who obtained supplies from both sources. Controversies thereafter arose as to the prices of yarn and the selling prices of tweed. The Transport and General Workers' Union, a registered trade union, of which Veitch was Scottish Area Secretary and Mackenzie Stornoway Branch Secretary, first became associated with the tweed industry in the islands in 1935. The union included among its members the majority of the employees in the tweed industry in the island, and the dock labourers at the port of Stornoway. In that year there was also formed an employers' committee, known as "The Wages and Conditions Advisory Committee," its object being to negotiate with the union on questions affecting wages and conditions of working. To begin with, it comprised all employers, including the importers of yarn, but later it had come to represent the mill-owners only, and in January 1937 an association of importers under the name of the Harris Tweed Yarn Purchasers Association was formed. As smaller wages were paid in the yarn mills on the mainland than in the yarn mills in the islands, imported yarn was cheaper than island made yarn, a fact affecting the conditions of the industry in general and the wages of the workers engaged in the industry. From 1935 onwards meetings took place and correspondence passed between the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the union as to rates of wages, trade union membership, importation of yarn, price cutting and other matters, the importation of yarn being, in particular, a stumbling block to an agreement as to prices, and adversely affecting the ability of the industry to maintain the existing rate of wages. The proof was in the main concerned with the history of these meetings and with the correspondence. Ultimately in January 1938 orders were given by Veitch and Mackenzie, as officials of the union, to the dockers at Stornoway to refuse to handle consignments of yarn from mills on the mainland.
The petitioners pleaded:—"(1) The respondents having illegally conspired together to interfere with and damage the petitioners' legitimate rights to trade as condescended upon, interdict should be granted as craved. (2) In the circumstances condescended upon, interim interdict should be granted as craved. (3) The answers, being irrelevant, should be repelled. (4) Separatim and in any event the respondents having by their actings wilfully interfered with and obstructed the petitioners' contractual relations and liberty to exercise their trade and having thereby caused injury to the petitioners, interdict should be granted as craved."
The respondents pleaded, inter alia:—"(1) The proceedings, being against officials of the trade union on behalf of themselves and all other members in respect of a tortious act alleged to have been committed on behalf of the trade union, are incompetent under section 4 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and should not be entertained. (2) The proceedings complained of having been carried out by the respondents in their capacity as officials of the said trade union and on its behalf, interdict against the respondents, being incompetent, should be refused." "(5) The embargo having been imposed in furtherance, or at least in contemplation, of a trade dispute, the proceedings are excluded by sections 1 and 3 of the said Act. (6) The petitioners' averments so far as material being unfounded in fact, the prayer of the petition should be refused. (7) In the circumstances the interim interdict should be recalled."1
On 8th March 1939 the Lord Ordinary, having taken the proof referred to above, recalled the interim interdict and dismissed the petition.
At advising on 22nd December 1939,—
LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (Aitchison).—In this action proceedings have been brought by the Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company, Limited, and certain other manufacturers and merchants of Harris tweed in the Island of Lewis, against the respondents, who are the Scottish Area Secretary and the Stornoway Branch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company v Veitch
-
Total Network SL v. United Kingdom (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs), (2008) 385 N.R. 310 (HL)
...Tweed Co. v. Veitch, [1942] A.C. 435 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 41, 56, 66, 116, 229]. Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. v. Veitch, [1940] S.C. 141 (Ct. Sess.), refd to. [para. Allen v. Flood, [1898] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 41, 71]. Sorrell v. Smith, [1925] A.C. 700 (H.L.), refd to.......
-
Digicel (St. Lucia) Ltd (a Company Registered Under The Laws of St. Lucia) 2) Digicel (SVG) Ltd (a Company Registered Under The Laws of St. Vincent & The Grenadines) and Others v 1) Cable & Wireless Plc 2)Cable & Wireless (West Indies) Ltd and Others
...an incomplete answer to the problem. At [41], he referred to Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch, in the Court of Session, [1940] SC 141, where crimes and torts were treated in the same way. At [42], he pointed out that the unlawful means chosen by the conspirators in Total Netw......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Total Network SL
...41 When Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435 was in the Court of Session Lord Justice Clerk Aitchison said ( 1940 SC 141, 155-156): "When the end of a combination is not a crime or a tort in the accepted sense, and the means are not in the accepted sense criminal o......