J. T. Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE PEARSON,LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 1964 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1964] EWCA Civ J0325-2 |
| Date | 25 March 1964 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1964] EWCA Civ J0325-2
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Pearson and
Lord Justice Salmon
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr Justice Marshall
MR P. PAIN (instructed by Messrs W. H. Thompson) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
MR NEIL LAWSON, Q. C. and MR A. CAMPBELL (instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
Mr Jack Stratford is the dominating figure in two private companies. One is J.T. Stratford & Son, Ltd. (whom I will call Stratfords). The other is Bowker & King Ltd (whom I will call Bowker & King). He is chairman of both, and he and his wife have a controlling interest in both.
The activities of Stratfords. Stratfords carry on two separate activities: (i) Letting barges. Stratfords own many barges which they let out to firms who carry goods by water, whom I will call the "barge-hirers". There are no written contracts of hire and the terms of the hiring are implied from the course of dealing. This is simply that the barge-hirer hires a barge from Stratfords. He uses it to do a particular job, e. g. to carry a particular cargo to a particular place. When it has finished the job, the barge-hirer returns it to Stratfords, premises, or to such place as Stratfords direct; or if he wants to use it for another job, he does so. Stratfords do not employ any lightermen themselves. The barge-hirers employ lightermen to take charge of the barges, to deliver the cargo, and return the barges to Stratfords when the job is done. (ii) Repairing vessels. Stratfords have a yard at Woolwich where they repair barges. They have a contract with the Port of London Authority (whom I will call P. L. A.) under which Stratfords at Woolwich repair barges belonging to P. L. A. The work is done each year in the winter season (from about September to the end of February). The P.L.A. send their barges in turn, one after another, to Stratfords' yard to be repaired. The course of dealing is that, ap one barge is finished, the next one is delivered fairly soon afterwards for repair. During the season beginning September 1963 the contract was for Stratfords to repair seven barges and one dummy owned by P.L.A. The P.L.A. employ lightermen to take the barges to Stratfords for repair, and to collect them after the repairs are done.
The two Unions. The lightermen who man the barges belong to one or other of two Unions. They belong either tothe Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union (which I will call the Watermen's Union): or to the Transport and General Workers' Union (which I will call the Transport Union). By far the greater proportion of lightermen belong to the Watermen's Union. Some 3,000 belong to the Watermen's Union and only 350 or so to the Transport Union.
The activities of Bowker & King. Bowker & King carry on a different activity altogether from Stratfords. They own and operate motor barges carrying oil, which ply in the Thames estuary and surrounding coastal waters. They employ a captain, mate and engineer on each of their vessels. These "self-propelled oil tankers" do not need lightermen of the old school: and the crews belong to one or other of the two Unions, the Watermen's Union or the Transport Union. Both Unions cater for the needs of these men; and there is, I suspect, some rivalry between them. The great majority of Bowker & King's men, as it happens, belong to the Transport Union and very few to the Watermen's Union. In November 1963 only three Bowker & King's men belonged to the Watermen's Union: whereas 45 men belonged to the Transport Union.
The requests by the Unions for recognition. For some years now these two Unions (the Watermen's Union and the Transport Union) have been anxious to come to some agreement with Bowker & King about the pay and conditions of work of the men on their self-propelled vessels. In 1956 the Watermen's Union approached Bowker & King on the matter but without success. In 1961 both Unions together approached them, but Bowker & King on 18th December, 1961, wrote to both saying they could not agree to an agreement on the matter. In 1962 again both Unions approached Bowker & King but on 5th October, 1962, Bowker & King replied in identical terms to both Unions: "After 4 giving very careful consideration to this matter we feel that the present system, which has worked satisfactorily for so long,should not be altered". The letter was signed by Mr Stratford on behalf of Bowker & King.
The separate agreement with the Transport Union. Seeing that the joint approach was unsuccessful, the Transport Union in 1963 acted on their own and sought an agreement with Bowker & King without letting the Watermen's Union know anything about it. On 19th March, 1963, the Transport Union sought an interview with Mr Stratford and added significantly: "We would not be accompanied by an official of the Watermen's Union". These negotiations were successful. During the next six months an agreement was reached in principle between Bowker & King and the Transport Union about the pay and conditions of the members of the Transport Union, though no formal agreement was signed. The Watermen's Union did not knew about these negotiations until 23rd October, 1963. When they did get to know, they were very upset about it: for the very obvious reason that, if the Transport Union was the only Union recognised by Bowker & King, there was every likelihood that the Watermen's Union would be squeezed out of these self-propelled vessels. It was probable that the Watermen's members (there were only three of them) on Bowker & King's vessels would leave the Watermen's Union and joint the Transport Union. It should be noticed that the three men of the Watermen's Union employed by Bowker & King had never made any complaint to their employers about their pay or conditions of service. Two of them had indeed wished to join the Transport Union but the Watermen's Union were not willing to release them.
The imposition of the embargo. As soon as the Watermen's Union discovered that the Transport Union had been negotiating on their own with Bowker & King, they took action. But they didnot take action against Bowker & King. They did not even write to them. They did not ask them for recognition. They did not call out their men who were employed by Bowker &King. That would be no good, for there were only three of them: if they left Bowker & King, they would no doubt he replaced by men of the Transport Union. But the Watermen's Union knew that Mr Stratford controlled Bowker & King. They struck at him, or rather, they struck at his other Company, Stratfords. They imposed an embargo. They declared all Stratfords'.barges to be "black". They told their members that, after dealing with cargoes on board, they were not to handle Stratfords' barges. This was a telling blow, because it meant that Stratfords' barges would be immobilised. They later declared that Stratfords' repair yard was also "black", so that barges owned by the P.L.A. or others were not to be brought to Stratfords' yard by their members for repair.
The decision was taken at a meeting of the Executive Council of the Watermen's Union on 6th November, 1963. It was conveyed to the employers' association in a letter of 8th November, 1963, which is so important that I must read it in fulls "Re J. T. Stratford & Son. To confirm my telephone conversation of yesterday's date with Mr Dunsmore, I now write to inform you of the following matter. In view of the fact that the above Company has, after repeated efforts on the part of our organisation to open negotiations, consistently denied this Trade Union the elementary right to negotiate industrial agreements on behalf of the members of this Union employed as crews on their self-propelled barges, trading under the name of Bowker & King, the Executive Council at their meeting held on Wednesday last, the 6th instant, have decided in defence of fundamental trade union principles to issue the following instructions 'That with effect from 6 a.m. Monday, 11th November, 1963, no member of this trade union will in any way man, servicer or tow empty barges owned by J. T. Stratford & Son. Craft under load will complete loading, and deliver, and when empty will be "blacked". This instruction will remain in force until further notice'. We regret any inconvenience that may be caused by thisinstruction to members of the Association of Master Lightermen who are not directly implicated in this problem and should any unforeseen difficulties arise, the officers of this Trade Union have been given the authority to deal with them without reference to the Executive Council. You will note by the terms of this instruction that craft under load or in the process of discharging will be completed and the embargo will become effective when the barges are empty. I repeat we regret the inconvenience that may be oaused but unfortunately the attitude of Mr J. Stratferd to this Trade Union has left us with no alternative action to take. Yours faithfully, W. Lindley, General Secretary".
On 11th November, 1963, the Employers Association replied saying that in their view the action of the Watermen's Union was unconstitutional. It was in these terms: "I must point out to you that while the Association has no authority to act on behalf of the operators of self-propelled vessels, the action you have taken lies not against an owner of these vessels, Bowker & King Ltd., but against a barge-letting member of this Association, J. T. Stratford & Sons Ltd. Whatever may be the background to the matter, therefore, your action can only be regarded as unconstitutional and to be deplored. I must accordingly in the name of the Association ask you to inform me without delay that the restriction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed Exhibitions Pte Ltd v Khoo Yak Chuan Thomas and Another
... ... American Cyanamid Co Ltd v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 (folld) Fellowes & Son v Fisher [1976] QB 122 (folld) J T Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley [1965] AC 269 (distd) Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251; [1991] 1 All ER 418 (folld) Lawrence David Ltd v ... ...
- A & L Silvestri Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
-
Union Traffic Ltd v Transport and General Workers' Union
...which I have quoted, acknowledged. For present purposes I think it is enough to draw attention to an observation of Lord Upjohn in Stratford v. Lindley cited by Mr Justice Stamp in Torquay Hotel v. Cousins [1969] 2 Chancery, 106 at p. 118. Lord Upjohn said: 31 "I cannot accept that an injun......
-
Heller Factoring (Singapore) Ltd v Ng Tong Yang
... ... See JT Stratford & Son v Lindley [1965] AC 307. Donaldson J in Fellowes & Son v Fisher [1976] QB 122, a case involving a restrictive covenant in a contract of ... ...