Post Office v Crouch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,LORD JUSTICE SCARMAN |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Civ J0516-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 May 1973 |
[1973] EWCA Civ J0516-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by Walter Thomas Crouch from order of the National Industrial Relations Court given by Mr. Justice Brightman on 7th July 1972.
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Stephenson and
Lord Justice Scarman
Mr. ALEXANDER IRVINE (instructed by Messrs. Waterhouse & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr. DAVID TURNER-SAMUELS, Q. C., and Mr. PETER SCOTT (instructed by the Solicitor to the Post Office) appeared on behalf of the Post Office.
Mr. RALPH GIBSON, Q.C. and Mr. IAN HUNTER (Instructed by Messrs. Simpson, Palmer &, Winder) appeared on behalf of the Union of Post Office Workers.
This case reminds me of the story of David and Goliath, with a difference. Goliath is winning all along the line. David has sought to find some stones in the brook called the Industrial Relations Act 1971: but every one of them has so far bounced off the invincible Goliath.
David is a small trade union called Telecommunications Staff Association (TSA), formerly the National Guild of Telephonists (NGT). It has up to 10,000 members employed in the Post Office. Most of them are men who operate the telephone system at night. It is registered under the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, with all the advantages which registration is supposed to afford.
Goliath is a large organisation of workers called the Union of Post Offioe Workers (UPW). It is not registered as a trade union and cannot in law be ranked as such. It is a mammoth organisation with up to 200,000 members employed in the Post Office. Some 40,000 of them are telephonists. More of these are women who operate the telephone system by day.
UPW was formed in 1920. TSA, under its former name NGT, broke away from UFW in 1928 because the men telephonists thought that UPW were not looking after their interests adequately. From that time onwards the two Unions were both recognised by the Post Office as being entitled to negotiate the wages and terms of employment of the men telephonists. This dual recognition led to much rivalry and hostility between the two unions. There were attempts over the years to mediate between them. All failed. Eventually, as from 8th September, 1970, the Post Office, being the employers, withdrew recognition from the NGT, now TSA. This meant that the Post Office recognised only the UPW as having any right to negotiate the wages and terms of employment of telephonists, both men and women. It meant also that the NGT now TSP had no right to carry on anyactivities on the premises of the Post Office. The Post Office had a rule that "unrecognised associations must not be allowed the various privileges designed to assist the recognised associations in the management of their affairs". So the officials of the UPW were allowed to put up notices to use rooms for meetings, to have time off, to recruit members, and to canvass for subscriptions - all on the premises of the Post Office. But the officials of the NGT now TSA were not allowed to do any ofthese things.
All this was a grievous blow to NGT now TSA. It might well have been mortal. But Parliament, on 5th August 1971, passed the Industrial Relations Act 1971. This statute contained provisions whereby a group of employees could apply to be recognised as a bargaining unit (Sections 45 and 46): and also provisions giving the members of a trade union a right to take part in its activities; and a right not to be discriminated against by their employer in those activities (Section 5(1) and (2)). Those provisions did not come into force until 28th February 1972. But, in anticipation of it, the members of the "NGT (or TSA as it was now called) made their dispositions for the fight. They wrote preliminary letters of claim. As soon as the Act came into force, they made application under it.
One of these was an application by TSA to the Industrial Court to be recognised as a bargaining unit. This application failed. It was rejected by the Industrial Court on 8th February 1972. we are not concerned today with that rejection. The other applications were made by five indibiyual members or officials of TSA to the Industrial Tribunals. They claimed that they were discriminated against by the Post Office. These five won their cases before the Industrial Tribunals. But the Post Office appealed to the Industrial Court. On the appeal, the Post Office were supported by UPW. The decisions of the Tribunals were reversed. On 28th July 1972, theIndustrial Court declared in effect that the members of the TSA were not entitled to carry on any trade union activities on the premises of the Post Office. The members of the TSA appeal to this Court. They have taken the case of Mr. Crouch as typical.
Mr. Crouch is a branch organiser of TSA for the South Central Telephone Area. After the 1971 Act was passed and before it came into force, Mr. Crouch on 14th October 1971, wrote to the Area Telephone Manager asked to be permitted to exhibit and Distribute literature, visit Post Office personnel and hold meetings in the area. On 29th October 1971, the manager replied:
"I am not authorised to enter into discussions with Unions not recognised by the Post Office, and, therefore, I am unable to agree with your request".
On the very day that the Act came into force on 28th February 1972, Mr. Cholmeley, anothar one of the five, wrote to the tele phone manager asking that he might:
"(a) Recruit members to the TSA within the Exchange building;
(b) Collect subscriptions within the Exchange building;
(c) Distribute and leave literature within the exchange building;
(d) "with the permission of the exchange Superintendent, entertain officers of the TSA in the Exchange building;
(e) With the permission of the exchange Superintendent, hold meetings of the TSA (outside the working hours of the members concerned) within the Exchange building".
The telephone manager replied by return on 29th February 1972:
"The Post Office grants facilities to recognised unions only, and tne purpose is to provide effective representation for collection bargaining purposes. Accordingly, no facilities are to be granted to unrecognised unions whether or not they are registered".
Mr. Crouch and the others received a letter in the same terms. Apart from the letters, there were incidents on the premises. Onthe very day that the Act came into force, Mr. Ravyts, one of the five, was sitting in the canteen with Mr. Holder, another official of the TSA. It was tea time. He was due to go on duty at 6 p. m. He sat at a table. He was prepared to take subscriptions from members, hand out pamphlets if required, and to have any discussion with members; or indeed, non-members, that might arrive. Soon after he sat down, two ladies, senior Chief Supervisors, came to the table. They told him to stop what he was doing, or to leave. Otherwise disciplinary action would be taken against him. Mr Holder told the Tribunal that he dare not sit in the canteen again for union activites "as I would be liable to disciplinary action and my promotion would be jeopardised".
On 1st March 1972, Mr. Ravyts wrote to the manager asking for a meeting to discuss the position. On 3rd March 1972, the manager replied: "You must by now be aware that the Post Office has decided that it does not intend to extend any of its published union facilities to the membership of non-rocognisedunions. So I cannot agree to meet you".
So the lines of battle were drawn. The officials of the TSA claimed the right to carry on their trade-union activities on the Post Office premises. The Post Office denied them any such right. On the 1st March 1972, Mr. Crouch lodged a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal. It was:
"As a member of a registered trade union, my employer discriminates against my trade union activities, by not allowing us the facilities granted by him to an Association of workers, i. e. the Union of Post Office workers".
On 24th April 1972, and 2nd May 1972, two industrial tribunals decided in favour of the five members of the TSA. But, on 7th July 1972, the Industrial Court decided against them. Its order wae explicit:
"It is declared that it is not an unfair industrial practice for the Post Office to prohibit the Respondents from taking part, in trade union activities at their place of employment outside working hours".
It then went on to give particulars of the things the men could not do outside working hours; such as recruiting new members, collecting, subscriptions, distributing literature, and many other things. The men appeal to this Court, taking Mr. Crouch's case as typical.
THE RIGHT OF THE WORKER ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES
section 5(1) (c) of the 1971 Act says that every worker shall, as between himself and his employer have……..,when he is a member of a trade union, the right, at any appropriate time, to take part in the activities of the trade union".
The Industrial Court, as I understand, have held that a worker has no such right when he is on the premises of the employer. He only has that right, they say, when he is at home or in some premises not occupied by his employer. All I would say is that, if thatis the only right given by the section, it gives him nothing. It did not need a statute to tell a worker that, when off the employer's premises, ha can take part in any activities that he likes.
If the section is to give him any right at all, it must mean that he has the right to take part in the activities of the trade union on his employer's premises. This is borne out by the fact that it is aright as between himself and his employer. He doss not need such a right when he is not on the employer's premises. It is also borne out by the subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton
...two important indications of the way in which it may be appropriate to construe a provision such as section 57 of the Act of 1978. In Post Office v. Crouch [1974] 1 W.L.R. 89 Lord Reid said at pp. 95-96: "Acts of Parliament generally follow the method of the common law in creating clearly ......
-
National Coal Board v Ridgway
...targeted at, the employee personally as an indidual. 32 The Industrial Relations Act 1971 as construed by the House of Lords in The Post Office v. Crouch [1974] I.C.R. 378 had the effect that discrimination against a union was also discrimination against the members of that union themselves......
-
United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
...against a giant one. Last time it was a story of two trade unions in the Post Office under the Industrial Relations Act 1971. See Post Office v. Crouch (1973) Industrial Cases Reports 366 and TSA v. Post Office (1974) Industrial Cases Reports 97 and (1974) Industrial Cases Reports 658. This......
-
F W Farnsworth Ltd v McCoid
...23 of the Act of 1978) to exclude from the ambit of the right conferred on employees by that section conduct of the kind found in Post Office v Crouch [1974] ICR 378. There the Post Office refused facilities for trade union activities on its premises to one particular union, and Mr Crouch, ......