PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO WORK
| Author | R. W. Rideout |
| Date | 01 March 1962 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1962.tb02197.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1962 |
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Vdume
25
March
1962
No.
2
PROTECTION
OF
THE
RIGHT
TO
WORK
THE
problems arising from the judgment of Sachs
J.
in the recent
case of
Roolces
v.
Barnard
have been exhaustively discussed in
the light of English law in a previous number of this journal
a
and
the shortcomings of the existing law brought very fully to light.
No
attempt will be made here to cover that ground again. The
learned author of that article, however, chose to consider the deci-
sion from the point of view of the union; that is to say, from the
aspect of the right to threaten strike action. This is obviously a
very important matter but, from the purely practical angle, while
one
may suspect that the unions will get by despite the decision in
Rookes’
case, one may wonder whether the same could have been
said of the individual denied work because he did not wish to be a
unionist,
if
judgment had gone the other way.
‘(
Workers,” declares the National Union of Printing,
Book-
binding and Paper Workers,
‘‘
exist by labour, and are, after all,
dependent upon what the merest breath of adversity may in a
moment dispel.”
a
The unions, however, normally require a
member
(‘
to set aside the immediate advantage of himself
.
.
.
for
the general benefit of the
Union
to which he belongs.’’ Clearly
there may well be a time when
a
workman may ask himself
whether the union is not, as he sees
it,
hindering
his
enjoyment
of
that by which he exists and whether he would do better to seek his
own ends apart from
it.
In
the past, discussion of this type of
problem has centred round the expelled member and it has been
assumed that when the courts have provided remedies in such a
case they have protected a man’s livelihood,
if
not adequately, at
least
to
the fullest possible extent. That this is not always
1
[lSSl] 2
All
E.R. 826; [1961]
3
W.L.R.
438.
2
K.
W.
Wedderburn,
“
The Right to Threaten Strikes
”
(1961) 24 M.L.R. 672.
8
General Rulei, 1966-Foreword.
4 Amalgaarated
Union
of
Building Trade Worker-Revieed Rulea, 1963-
5
On
thin
snpect
of
the “right
to
work”
in
this
county
sea
Profeamr Lloyd
187
Preface.
(1967) 10 C.L.P.
36.
Va
!26
6
To continue reading
Request your trial