Post Office v Crouch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest,Lord Simon of Glaisdale,Lord Cross of Chelsea,Lord Salmon |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] UKHL J1211-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 11 December 1973 |
[1973] UKHL J1211-2
House of Lords
Lord Reid
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Lord Cross of Chelsea
Lord Salmon
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause The Post Office against Union of Post Office Workers and another, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 6th, as on Wednesday the 7th, Thursday the 8th, Monday the 12th, Tuesday the 13th, Wednesday the 14th, Monday the 19th, Tuesday the 20th and Wednesday the 21st, days of November last, upon the Petition and Appeal of The Post Office, of 23 Howland Street, London, W.1, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 16th of May 1973, so far as regards the words ( It is Ordered that this Appeal be allowed, the Order of the National Industrial Relations Court wholly set aside and the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal restored), might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, and that the Petitioners might have the relief prayed for in the Appeal, or such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of the Union of Post Office Workers; and also upon the Case of Walter Thomas Crouch, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 16th day of May 1973, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the Second Respondent the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
This case is concerned with the proper construction of new rights conferred on workers by the Industrial Relations Act, 1971. The Union of Post Office Workers (U.P.W.) was formed in 1920. In 1928 male telephonists who were dissatisfied with the service given to them by the U.P.W. formed a new union, the National Guild of Telephonists, now known as the Telecommunications Staff Association (T.S.A.). From then until 1970 both Unions were recognised by the Postmaster General and then by the Post Office. In 1970 a proposal for merger between U.P.W. and T.S.A. was agreed by U.P.W. and by the Executive Committee of T.S.A. It was welcomed by the Post Office. On a ballot, however, the merger was rejected by T.S.A., only 40 per cent, of the members entitled to vote exercising that right. Thereafter in September 1970 the Post Office withdrew recognition from T.S.A. and since then the T.S.A. has been unable to negotiate or bargain with the Post Office and various facilities afforded by the Post Office to the U.P.W. and its members have been denied to the T.S.A. and its members.
Before the coming into effect of the Industrial Relations Act in February, 1972, the Post Office were not in breach of any legal obligation in acting as they did. We are not concerned in the present case with the question whether that Act affords any remedy to the T.S.A. We are only concerned with the question of the extent to which the Act confers rights on or affords remedies to its individual members.
As soon as the Act enabled them to do so five members of the T.S.A. made complaints to Industrial Tribunals under the Act alleging that certain actions of the Post Office were unfair industrial practices within the meaning of the Act. The complaints of Mr. Ravyts and Mr. Smith were heard by one tribunal on 24th April, 1972. Those of Mr. Crouch, Mr. Cholmeley and Mr. Adams were heard by another tribunal on 2nd May, 1972.
The greater part of these complaints was upheld by these tribunals. The Post Office appealed to the Industrial Court on a question of law alleging that the tribunals had misconstrued the Act. This appeal was successful but Mr. Crouch appealed to the Court of Appeal and they restored the decision of the tribunal in his favour. The Post Office now appeals to this House.
We are principally concerned with the proper construction of section 5 of the Act. It enacts:
"5.—(1) Every worker shall, as between himself and his employer, have the following rights, that is to say,—
( a) the right to be a member of such trade union as he may choose;
( b) subject to sections 6 and 17 of this Act, the right, if he so desires, to be a member of no trade union or other organisation of workers or to refuse to be a member of any particular trade union or other organisation of workers;
( c) where he is a member of a trade union, the right, at any appropriate time, to take part in the activities of the trade union (including any activities as, or with a view to becoming, an official of the trade union) and the right to seek or accept appointment or election, and (if appointed or elected) to hold office, as such an official.
(2) It shall accordingly be an unfair industrial practice for any employer, or for any person acting on behalf of an employer,—
( a) to prevent or deter a worker from exercising any of the rights conferred on him by subsection (1) of this section, or
( b) to dismiss, penalise or otherwise discriminate against a worker by reason of his exercising any such right, or
( c) except in accordance with the next following section, to refuse to engage a worker on the grounds that, at the time when he applied for engagement, he was a member of a trade union or of a particular trade union, or that he was not then a member of a trade union or other organisation of workers or of a particular trade union or other organisation of workers or of any of two or more particular trade unions or other such organisations.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)( a) of this section an employer, or a person acting on behalf of an employer, shall not be regarded as preventing or deterring a worker from exercising the rights conferred on the worker by subsection (1)( b) of this section by reason only that (without any suggestion of reward for compliance or penalty for non-compliance) he seeks to encourage the worker to join a trade union which the employer recognises as having negotiating rights in respect of him.
(4) Where an employer offers a benefit of any kind to any workers as an inducement to refrain from exercising a right conferred on them by subsection (1) of this section, and the employer—
( a) confers that benefit on one or more of those workers who agree to refrain from exercising that right, and
( b) withholds it from one or more of them who do not agree to do so.
the employer shall for the purposes of this section be regarded, in relation to any such worker as is mentioned in paragraph ( b) of this subsection, as having thereby discriminated against him by reason of his exercising that right.
(5) In this section 'appropriate time', in relation to a worker taking part in any activities of a trade union, means time which either—
( a) is outside his working hours, or
( b) is a time within his working hours at which, in accordance with arrangements agreed with, or consent given by or on behalf of, his employer, it is permissible for him to take part in those activities;
and in this subsection 'working hours', in relation to a worker, means any time when, in accordance with his contract with his employer, he is required to be at work."
Mr. Crouch, who is a branch organiser of T.S.A. complained that he had been prevented by Post Office officers and regulations from:
-
"( a) recruiting members for the T.S.A. at the premises of the Branch where he (Mr. Crouch) worked.
-
( b) collecting subscriptions from members of the T.S.A. at such premises.
-
( c) distributing T.S.A. literature at such premises.
-
( d) leaving such literature in appropriate places at such premises.
-
( e) with the permission of the Exchange Superintendent, entertaining at such premise officials of the T.S.A. who are employess of the Post Office.
-
( f) with the permission of the Exchange Superintendent, holding meetings of members of the T.S.A. at such premise.
-
( g) distributing and leaving T.S.A. literature at any Exchange, Directory Enquiry Bureau or Post Office Controlled Private Branch Exchange or P.B.X. (hereinafter called 'any such centre') within the South Centre area of the London Telecommunications Region.
-
( h) by arrangement with the Senior Supervisor there, within the said area visiting any such centre to talk to staff with a view to recruitment to the T.S.A.
-
( i) with the permission in each instance of the Telephone Manager, holding meetings of members of the T.S.A. at any such centre within the South Centre Area."
Before the Industrial Court the main argument for the Post Office was that section 5 confers no right on any worker to conduct any trade union activities on their property. The decision of that Court was:
"It is not an unfair industrial practice for the Post Office to prohibit the Respondents as members of a registered trade union from taking part in trade union activities at their place of employment outside working hours."
It may be well to set out their reasoning in full, because it includes most of the matters relied on by counsel for the Post Office before your Lordships. They said:
"… we have reached the conclusion that section 5(1)( c) of the Act does not on its true construction confer on the members of a registered trade union the right, against the will of their employer, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Post Office v Adams
- Zucker v Astrid Jewels Ltd
- Saggers v British Railways Board (No. 2)
-
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson ; Associated British Ports v Palmer and Others
...the phrase "taken against him as an individual" were introduced to override parts of the reasoning in the House of Lords' decision in Post Office -v- Crouch [1974] 1 WLR. 89, to the effect that action taken against a union was taken against all its members. 11 At all material times so far a......