General Aviation Services (U.K.) Ltd v TGWU
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE SCARMAN |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0501-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 01 May 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0501-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Revised
Appeal of first respondent, Transport and General Workers Union from judgment of the National Industrial Relations Court on 20th November, 1973
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Orr and
Lord Justice Scarman
Mr. PETER PAIN, Q. C, Mr. K. W. WEDDERBURK and Mr. IAN HUNTER (Instructed by Messrs. Pattinson and Brewer) appeared on behalf of the Transport and General Workers Union, Appellants.
Mr. RICHARD YORKE, Q. C., and Miss GENEVRA CAWS (instructed by Messrs. Norton Rose, Botterell & Roche) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Complainants.
In the three years from 1969 to 1972, there were frequent storms at London Airport. Industrial storms, which upset the traffic as much as weather storms. They blew up because a firm called General Aviation Services (Gas) was employed to load aircraft, to handle baggage, and do other ground services. The workers, at the airport objected to this firm GAS and took industrial action against them. As a result Gas was forced out of business. Now GAS claim compensation from The Transport and General workers Union. They claim that the members of the trade union were guilty of an unfair industrial practice: and that the trade union are responsible for it. GAS put the claim at nearly £2,000,000.
GAS make their claim under the Industrial Relations Act 1971. That Act is now dead and buried. But it is not forgotten. The Industrial Relations Court is now defunct. But it has left behind it a legacy. It is this litigation. The Transport and General Workers Union bitterly opposed the Act. It never registered under it. If it had been registered, it could not have been made liable. But, as it never registered, it is said to be liable to pay this big sum. It is a statutory penalty for net registering. The relevant statutory provisions were only in force for 2½ years. They have since been repealed by the Trade Union Act 1974. But Parliament did not take away the rights which had accrued under the repealed provisions. So we have to consider them.
The material provisions are sections 96, 97, 93, 101(2) and 116(1) of the 1971 Act. I will not read them in full. But the substance of then is that, if an unregistered trade union, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute calls or organises a strike, or industrial action short of a strike, so to induce a breach of contract, or prevents a person from performing a contract, it is guilty of an unfair industrial practice: and it is liable topay compensation to the party injured such compensation to he awarded according to what is just and equitable. The liability under sections 96 and 97 was not cast on registered trade unions, but only on unregistered ones.
But, before I go further, I must five the history leading up to the events of June 1972. The 1971 Act only came into force on 28th February 1972. So the trade union are not liable under it for anything done before that date. But the history is relevant.
2 THS COMING OF GAS TO LONDON AIRPORT
At every airport there must be a "ground-handling service", that is, men and equipment to load and unload aircraft, to clean them, to handle baggage and cargo, and so forth. Up till 1969, the big airlines using London Airport, such as BEA and BOAC did it for themselves. Every big airline did the ground handling for its own aircraft by employing its own men and equipment. But the, smaller airlines, such as Iberia Airlines, used to get someone to do it for them. Each small airline got it done, either by one of the big airlines or by a small firm near the airport.
In 1969, the British Airport Authority at London Airport (which is entrusted by the Airport Authority Act 1965 with the management of the Airport) decided that there was room for improvement in ground handling services. To promote efficiency they proposed to set up a new body which should provide a comprehensive ground-handling service for any airline that desired into this new body was to be independent of any of the existing airlines. It would not encroach on the services which each of the big airlines already had for its own aircraft, each of the big airlines could continue its own service if it wished. But the new body would provide service for the small airlines which had not the men and equipment of their own: and for any new airlines which came to London Airport. It would be of a viablesize and provide a full range of service.
In order to implement this decision the British Airport Authority selected a Canadian Company called General Aviation Services Limited to be the new body. It was chosen from amongst four or five companies. But preference was given to the Canadian Company because it had substantial experience in providing ground-handling services at a number of Canadian Airports. On 29th August 1969, an agreement was made under which BAA granted to this Canadian Company (GAS) the sole concession for all ground-handling services at London Airport (save for those already operated by the big airlines). The concession was to be for seven years, from 1st September 1969, with a break-clause; after 4 years. But the British Airport 'Authority retained a whip-hand over the Canadian Company. It could dictate to GAS just what they should and should not do. The Canadian Company was bound to provide a ground-handling service for any airlines that the Airport Authority required: and it was not at liberty to provide any other service except such as the Airport Authority agreed in writing.
3. THE OPPOSITION OF THE WORKERS
All these arrangements were made in secret without any consultation with the workers on the Airport. Then suddenly, on 15th September 1969, the Canadian Company (GAS) brought its men and equipment on to the apron. This was done, no doubt, at the instance of BAA, and with its approval. At once there was uproar. The airport workers made a counter attack. They blocked in the vehicles and stopped them moving. The Canadian Company were forced to withdraw. Three weeks later, on 6th October 1969, the airport workers held a mass meeting. They resolved that the GAS vehicles and airlines trading with them should be "blacked". This resolution was renewed time and time again at mass meetings over the next three years.
Why did the workers at Heathrow object to GAS? Their shop stewards later stated their objections in these words:
"(a) The implementation of this contract would bring about mass redundancy and, at the best, a considerable transfer of staff to GAS.
(b) The entrance of a foreign-financed private company into the nationalised sector, creaming off profit from what represents a public investment of many millions of pounds,
(c) The way in which the whole affair has been conducted without any consultation with the workers involved, and when meetings were held, a number of lies were told".
The industrial action brought GAS's operations to a standstill. It meant, of course, that GAS was losing all benefit of the concession which it had been granted by BAA. It had its men and equipment standing idle, doing nothing. It threatened to withdraw from the "Agreement and claim damages from BAA. But BAA., were anxious at this time to see GAS do the ground handling. So it asked GAS to stay and proceeded to make payments to GAS by way of subvention to meet its losses. These subventions continued during all the subsequent events, (which I will relate) down to the end of June 1971, when they were running at £8,000 a month.
Seeing that the "blacking" continued, BV decided to take action against the loaders of the men. In December 1969., they got their solicitors to write letters before action. On 5th March 1970, they issued. a writ against one of the cost active shop stewards, Mr. Ian Stuart. They sought an injunction restraining him from inducing broaches of their contract with G. S. This writ roused the workers at the airport to a white heat. On Thursday, 12th March 1970, the National Joint Council for Civil Mr Transport saw danger. That is a responsible body consisting of airlines and trade unions. They telephoned urging the cancellation of the contract with GAS:
"The National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport urges both British Airport Authority and General Aviation Services in the best interests of labor relations throughout the air transport industry to voluntarily withdraw from the contract entered into for handling services at London Heathrow Airport.
Further urgently request withdrawal from impending proceedings against an individual".
Meanwhile the shop stewards had called the workers together. On Monday, 16th March 1970, there was a mass meeting at the Brentford Football Club ground. It was attended by between 11,000 and 12,000 airport workers. The speakers did not blame GAS. They vented their wrath on the British Airports Authority and its chairman, Mr. Peter Masefield, because they had brought GAS on to the airport. These are some of the things that were said from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- General Aviation Services (U.K.) Ltd v Transport and General Workers' Union
-
Mercury Communications Ltd v Scott-Garner
...indicate and provide a degree of restriction. 43In this context we were referred to General Aviation Services v. T.G.W.U. (1975) Industrial Cases Reports 276, but I have not been able to derive any assistance from that decision, since the legislative context was so different. In particular......
-
Hadmor Productions Ltd and Others v Hamilton and Another
...the case presents significant parallels to the situation in General Aviation Services Ltd. v. Transport and General Workers Union [1975] I.C.R. 276, in which similar fears of possible redundancies had led to blacking. The Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Orr and Scarman L.JJ.) held that......
-
Argos Ltd v Unite The Union
...that it is common ground that it is not for me to consider whether concerns set out by Unite are in fact well founded; see General Aviation Services v TGWU [1975] ICR 276. 33 As to the approach to section 229(2B) of TULCA, it was common ground that the summary had to be a reasonable summary......