Edwards v Society of Graphical and Allied Trades
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE SACHS,LORD JUSTICE MEGAW |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Civ J0730-1 |
| Date | 30 July 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1970] EWCA Civ J0730-1
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Sachs and
Lord Justice Megaw
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal from judgment of Mr. Justice Buckley by defendants.
Mr. PETER PAIN, C.C., and Mr. ANTHONY LESTER (instructed by Messrs. W.H. Thompson) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiff.
Mr. EMIYN HOOSON, Q,.C, and Mr. ROLF HAMMERTON (Instructed by Messrs. Lawford & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Defendants.
1. The Facts Mr. Beresford Edwards is now aged 40. He was born In British Guyana. At the age of 14 he was apprenticed to the printing trade in Guyana and worked his way up until he becames foreman there. In 1960, at the age of 30, he came to England and got work in Manchester with Hugh Stevensons, the big printing works. In 1965 his wife came over here to join him. He bought a house in Manchester. They have four boys, aged 11, 7, 5 and 3. He remained with Stevensons for nearly eight years until December 1967. He says he lost his work with Stevensons because the Union wrongly deprived him of his membership of the Union. He now sues the Union for damages for breach of contract. He cannot, of course, sue the Union in tort.
At the outset I must mention two points: The first is that the men at Stevensons all belong to a Trade Union called the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, or more shortly, S.O.G.A.T. The work at Hugh Stevensons is not a "closed shop", but the Union insists on "100% membership". The difference is this: When a firm is a "closed shop" no man can obtain work there unless he is already a member of the Union. Jut when a firm is "100% membership", he need not be a member when he applies for work, but, as soon as he gets work there, he must join the Union.
The second thing is that the Union controls employment in the trade. It operates a "labour exchange". It divides its members into two main classes: "Full Members" and "Temporary Members". A "Full Member" Is secure in his membership of the Union. He cannot be fined expelled except for misconduct, and he has a right of appeal to the Appeals Committee. If he is out of work and a job is available, he is always given priority over a temporary member. A "Temporary Member" is not at all secure in his membership. It can be terminated at a moment's notice by the Branch Committee, and he has no right of appeal at all. If he is out of work, and a job is available, he isnot considered for it until all the "full members" nave been offered it. A "temporary member" can become a "full member", but he has to wait two years, or more, for it.
When Mr, Edwards was first employed by Hugh Stevensons in 1960, he became a full member of the Union, or its predecessor. In 1964 he ceased for a few months to be a member, but in January 1965 he was readmitted as a temporary member. A blue card was issued to him showing that his new membership started on the 30th January, 1965. He paid his weekly contributions regularly until June 1965. The Union then introduced a "check-off" system. This meant that, instead of the workman paying his own contributions to the Union, his employers were to pay them and deduct them from his wages. Mr. Edwards signed a written authority for the purpose and handed it to the Secretary of the Manchester Branch of the Union. The Secretary ought to have sent it to the employers, and, on receipt of it, the employers would have paid the contributions. But, unfortunately, the Secretary failed to send this written authority to the employers. So the employers did not deduct anything from his wages for the contributions and did not pay anything to the Union, Mr. Edwards was not aware of this mistake: and continued apparently secure in his membership. So much, so that in November 1965 he was elected Deputy Father of his Chapel. Soon afterwards, however, the Branch told him that his contributions had not been paid and that he was no longer a member. Rule 18(4)(h) says that "Temporary Membership shall terminate automatically if the member becomes over six weeks in arrears." Now it is true that Mr. Edwards was over six weeks in arrears. His contributions had not been paid. But it was not his fault. It was the fault of the Union Secretary: because he had not notified the employers of the "check-off" authority. Nevertheless, although Mr. Edwards was not to blame, he wastreated as no longer being a member. He was told he was no longer a member.
Early in 1966 Mr. Edwards re-applied for membership. Sodid four others who were in the same plight. These four were allowed to pay up their back dues and were re-admitted. But Mr. Edwards was refused. In May 1966 he was given a hearing. On the 1st July 1966 the Secretary wrote to him that the decision of the Branch Committee was: "That your application be not accepted."
Mr. Edwards did not suggest that this was due to the colour of his skin. He only said "Being black doesn't make it any easier".
A few days later, on the 5th July, 1966, Mr. Edwards wrote drawing their attention to "….the fact that "there has been a clerical error on the part of the Union and Management of Hugh Stevensons in not deducting from weekly wages my Union subscriptions". Nevertheless, he was not readmitted. Yet he continued at work with Hugh Stevensons for another sixteen months. Then the men who were working there told the employers they would not work with him unless his membership card was restored. In other words, they would strike unless he was dismissed. In consequence, Hugh Stevensons on the 6th November, 1967, felt obliged to suspend him. They wrote to him, saying:
"Since your membership card has not been restored, we have no alternative, from a Company viewpoint, but to suspend you from duty. If your card is restored, the Company will pay your wages in full during the period of your suspension."
On the 13th November, 1967. the Manchester Branch finally refused to restore his membership card. On this occasion they did it without a hearing. The Secretary wrote saying that the Branch Committee decided:
"That the application of Mr. 3. Edwards for a membership card of this Onion be refused."
The employers, therefore, had of option but to dismiss him. On the 21st December, 1967, they gave him four weeks' notice to terminate his employment and paid him four weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
Mr. Edwards got legal aid. On the 8th Hay, 1963, he brought an action against the Union. He claimed a declaration that he was still a member of the Union, and an injunction to restrainthe Union from interfering with his prospects of employment. On the 21st June, 1968, the Union agreed not to do any act to interfere with his prospects of employment. On the 3rd July, 1968, the Union put in a defence, saying that his membership had automatically terminated by reason of arrears and that his application for readmission had been properly rejected.
2. THE INCIDENT AT BOXMAKERS.
Nevertheless, although he was not a member of the Union, Mr. Edwards sought other work. He went to a firm which did not employ Union men. It was a "non-Union shop" - Boxmakers Ltd. He started with them on the 9th September, 1968, as an assistant. He soon proved himself so capable that he was put on to a Heidelberg cutting-and-creasing-cylinder machine. But he earned less money. Whereas he averaged £29. 7s.9d a week at Hugh Stevensons, he only averaged £22 a week at Boxmakers.
Six months later, whilst he was still working for Boxmakers, the Union gave up their defence in the action. On the 9th April, 1969, they agreed that his purported expulsion from the Union was null and void and that he had at all times retrained a temporary member of the Union. They said they were prepared to submit to declarations to that effect and for damages to be assessed.
Shortly afterwards, however, Mr. Edwards lost his employmentat Boxmakers. On the 1st May 1969 he came to loggerheads withthem. It happened in this way: Mr. Edwards was doing work forwhich he required "stillages" (i.e. flat pieces of wood on legs) to put the material on. There were none available on themorning of the 1st May, 1969. The reason was because thelabourer who handled them had been away sick for five or sixweeks. The firm had ordered more, but they had not arrived. So the foreman asked Mr. Edwards to unstack some so as to makemore available. Mr. Edwards said he would not do it. Theforeman called the Works Manager, Mr. Lynch. He explained thedifficulties, but Mr. Edwards said: "I won't do it. It'snot my job." Later on, after dinner, the Works Manager askedhim again to do it. Mr. Edwards said again: "I won't." Theworks Manager said: "That gives me no alternative but to sendyou home." Mr. Edwards said: "You can't do that. You willhave to sack me." The Works Manager said: "I don't want tosack you but you leave me no alternative." So the Works Managerdismissed him. He gave him one week's pay in lieu of notice. But he gave him a good reference in these words:" Mr. Beresford Edwards was In our employ from 9th September, 1968 to 1st May, 1969. We found him to be honest and a good time-keeper. He was employed on our Heidelberg Department dealing with printing; also cutting and creasing. His work was quite satisfactory." Finding himself out of work, Mr. Edwards applied forunemployment benefit; and, after inquiry, the Ministry grantedit. Boxmakers told the Ministry, fairly enough, that it was nopart of his contract to clear the stillages. So he got hisunemployment benefit. But does his conduct count against him inassessing damages?In point of law Mr. Edwards, I think, was entitled to takethe stand he did. He was asked to do something which was outsidebis proper work as a skilled man: and he refused. Otherskilled men were likewise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Radford v NATSOPA
-
Heeralall v Hack Bros. (Construction) Company Ltd et Al
...still able to earn?” 7 The above principle of calculating prospective loss of earnings was applied in the recent case of Edwards v. Society of Graphical & Allied Trades by way of analogy to personal injuries cases. There, the plaintiff Edwards, as the result of a breach of contract, was wro......
-
Colclough v The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
...Wales exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings. (See, e.g., Nagle v. Feilden [1966] 2 Q.B. 633, Edwards v. SOGAT [1971] Ch. 354, R. ( Sunspell Ltd (t/a Superlative Travel)) v. Association of British Travel Agents [2001] ACD 16, Bradley v. Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 216......
-
Kerr v Morris
...seeks to import into partnership law propositions which have been laid down in certain trade union cases such as Edwards v. Society of Graphical & Allied Trades (1971) Ch. 354, where it was held by Lord Denning at page 376 to 377 that a member of a trade union cannot be expelled without rea......