Dimbleby & Sons Ltd v National Union of Journalists
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE GRIFFITHS,THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STEPHEN BROWN |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Civ J1206-3 |
| Docket Number | 83/0479 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 06 December 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Civ J1206-3
The Master of The Rolls
(Sir John Donaldson)
Lord Justice Griffiths
and
Lord Justice Stephen Brown
83/0479
1983 D. No. 2297
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(SIR NEIL LAWSON)
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. STEPHEN SILBER (instructed by Messrs. Cameron Markby) appeared on behalf of the (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
MR. JOHN HENDY (led by Mr. John Melville-Williams, Q.C. on Thursday, 1st December, 1983) (instructed by Messrs. Bindman & Partners) appeared on behalf of the (Defendants) Appellants.
In 1978 there was a national strike of journalists working on provincial newspapers. After negotiations between the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and the employers' organisation, the Newspaper Society, the strike was settled at the beginning of 1979. With one exception all the newspaper proprietors reinstated the journalists who had been dismissed during the strike.
The one exception was T. Bailey Forman Ltd., a company that published a newspaper in Nottingham. This company refused to re-employ 28 journalists that they had dismissed for taking part in the strike; the journalists were all members of the NUJ. From the moment the company refused to reinstate the journalists they were involved in a trade dispute with those journalists within the meaning of section 29 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and as amended by section 18 of the Employment Act 1982.
The union was outraged by the company's decision. They regarded it as blatant victimisation of their members and in breach of a no victimisation agreement with the employers which was one of the terms upon which the strike had been settled. The union declared the company to be "black"; not one of their members should work for it nor should they supply copy to it.
In coming to the support of its members in this fashion there is no dispute that the union was protected from any action at common law by the provision of section 13 of the 1974 Act as amended by the 1976 Act.
The dispute continues to this day. There are still five of the sacked journalists who have been unable to find alternative employment and the union continues to support them with dispute pay and as far as the union is concerned T. Bailey Forman Ltd. is still "black".
T. Bailey Forman Ltd. continues to publish its newspaper but it employs no members of the NUJ. The newspaper is printed by another company T.B.F. (Printers) Ltd.; this company also employs no union labour and what is of particular significance it does not employ any members of the National Graphical Association 1982 (NGA).
The plaintiffs carry on business as sellers and distributors of weekly newspapers published on Fridays entitled the Richmond and Twickenham Times, the Brentford, Chiswick and Isleworth Times, the Barnes, Sheen and Mortlake Times and the Teddington and Hampton Times ("the specified newspapers"). They are published by Richmond and Twickenham Times Limited and Brentford and Chiswick Times Limited which companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the plaintiffs. These companies have an agreement with the plaintiffs that in consideration for the plaintiffs providing printing facilities and journalists at the plaintiffs' expense for the specified newspapers the plaintiffs were entitled to and did receive all the advertising and sales revenue of the specified newspapers. Prior to the 19th August, 1983 the specified newspapers were printed by Dimbleby Printers Limited (Printers). A dispute arose between Printers and the NGA as a result of which all the employees of Printers who were members of the NGA went on strike after publication of the specified newspapers on the 19th August, 1983.
All the strikers were dismissed, the printing company is not operating and Printers and the NGA are in dispute. In these circumstances if the papers were to be produced the plaintiffs had to find another printer. The choice was very limited because NGA is a powerful union operating a closed shop in many printing firms and would have blacked any "Dimbleby" copy.
The plaintiffs therefore entered into negotiations with T.B.F. Printers Ltd., who employed no NGA members and were thus not vulnerable to a threat that the NGA would withdraw their members if they printed for the plaintiffs.
On the 7th October, 1983 the plaintiffs told their journalists, the majority of whom were members of the NUJ, that the papers were no longer to be printed by Printers and would in future be printed by T.B.F., but that this would have no effect upon the working conditions of the journalists who should continue to hand in their copy to the Richmond office as before.
Miss Joanna Davies, the mother of the chapel, had some anxiety about this decision. She convened a meeting of the NUJ chapel which comprised nine of the journalists employed by the plaintiffs and invited Mr. Knowles, one of the NUJ national officers, to address them. This meeting took place on the 10th October.
Mr. Knowles has sworn an affidavit dated the 28th October in which he deals with what he said at that meeting. He says his approach was gentle and reassuring, almost avuncular. He explained the background of the dispute between the union and T.B.F., his conviction that the union would instruct them to withdraw their labour when the national executive council met later that week, and the consequences if they refused to obey the union's instructions. There is no reason to doubt Mr. Knowles' assertion that he was neither bullying nor intimidating, but, however it was delivered, the message he spelt out is to be found in the documents produced immediately after that meeting by those who attended it.
A document published by the Dimbleby Chapel of the NUJ entitled "Why The Times Are Changing", contained the following passage:
"While we sympathise with the plight of the Dimbleby printers, all of whom were sacked after a seven-week dispute over redundancies, the N.U.J. action is a quite separate issue. Having decided some time ago to print out at Nottingham, David Dimbleby forced all the journalists to choose between working for him at the expense of our N.U.J. membership, or keeping our N.U.J. membership at the expense of our jobs. The choice was as stark and unacceptable as that.
It was an agonising decision for all of us to be faced with.
Since the N.U.J. is still in dispute with T. Bailey Forman, the national organiser had no alternative but to inform us that we would be banned from the N.U.J. and 'blacked' by other N.U.J. publications if we continued working for Dimbleby. However, we were advised to decide individually what course of action to take, and no pressure was exerted by union officials."
A letter dated the 24th October signed by all the members of the Dimbleby NUJ chapel contains the following passages:
"The National Union of Journalists, of which all 13 are members, has had a long standing dispute with T. Bailey Forman, and what we were being asked by the company was as stark as this: File copy to be printed by a blacked firm, and to hell with your N.U.J. cards.
Our loyalty to Dimbleby Newspapers and to their aims to be, as you put it, 'definitive journals of record, traditional in approach, comprehensive yet modern in style and presentation' has surely never been questioned.
But when asked to choose between that loyalty, with very little explanation or assurances, and our N.U.J. cards, we had no alternative. As career journalists, our first loyalty had to be to ourselves."
Another letter to the like effect written by Miss Davies on behalf of all members of the Dimbleby Chapel was published in the Richmond and Twickenham Guardian of the 3rd November.
Whatever language Mr. Knowles may have used, these documents are very strong evidence that the message was clear; if you supply copy you will lose your union card.
After the meeting Mr. Knowles reported by letter of the 10th October to Mr. Ashton the General Secretary of the NUJ. On the 11th October there was a telephone conversation between Mr. Dimbleby and Mr. Ashton during which Mr. Dimbleby told Mr. Ashton that he had entered into a printing contract with T.B.F. and that he could not withdraw from it.
On the 12th October Mr. Richards, the editor of the Dimbleby newspapers, sent a memorandum to the journalists warning them that if they went on strike they would not be re-employed in any circumstances.
On the 13th October the union riposted with a strike notice to take effect on the 17th October.
On the 17th October the journalists met the editor. The editor withdrew the threat of dismissal, but the journalists refused to submit any copy that was to be printed by T.B.F., and they were suspended.
There followed some further meetings and correspondence but to no effect and on the 25th October, 1983 the plaintiffs issued their writ and applied for interlocutory injunctions.
The relief sought by the plaintiffs in their writ falls under two main heads. Firstly, to stop the union from inducing breaches of the contracts of employment they have with their own journalists, and secondly to stop the union from procuring breaches of or interfering with their contract with T.B.F. Printers Ltd. and with a number of contracts to place advertisements in their newspapers.
Before the judge the plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining injunctions in the following terms:
"IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants whether by themselves, their officers, servants or agents or howsoever...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
OBG Ltd. et al. v. Allan et al., (2007) 369 N.R. 66 (HL)
...41]. Millar v. Bassey, [1994] E.M.L.R. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 43, 264]. Dimbleby & Sons v. National Union of Journalists, [1984] 1 W.L.R. 67, refd to. [para. 44]. Dimbleby & Sons v. National Union of Journalists, [1984] 1 W.L.R. 427, refd to. [para. 44]. National Phonograph Co.......
-
MRA INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD vs SPC DIATECH, LLC
...relations has been treated as coming within 210 the Lumley v Gye tort (like Dimbleby & Sons Ltd v National Union of Journalists [1984] 1 WLR 67 and [1984] 1 WLR 427) are really cases of causing loss by unlawful means.” (emphasis OBG’s case was referred by the High Court in Deepak Jaikishan ......
-
The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Michael Patrick McCarthy
...in which interference with contractual relations has been treated as coming within the Lumley v Gye tort (like Dimbleby & Sons Ltd v National Union of Journalists [1984] 1 WLR 67 and [1984] 1 WLR 427 ) are really cases of causing loss by unlawful means." 75 Lord Nicholls described the p......
-
British Associated ports v Transport & General workers Union
... ... It established the National Dock Labour Board which was responsible for administering the scheme and ... v. Ethicon Ltd [1973] A.C. 496 and in Dimbleby & Son Ltd. v. National Union of Journalists [1984] 1 W.L.R. 27 ... that, in the light of the House of Lords decision in Dimbleby & Sons Ltd v. N.U.J. [1984] 1 C.R. 386 , once he was satisfied (as he was) that ... ...