The Use of Injunctions in Industrial Disputes May 1984‐April 1987
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1987.tb00728.x |
| Date | 01 November 1987 |
| Published date | 01 November 1987 |
The
Use
of Injunctions in Industrial
Disputes
May
1984-April 1987
Stephen
Evans
*
This note updates earlier data on the use
of
civil law remedies in indust-
rial disputes since August 1980 (Evans 1985a). It covers the period from
May 1984
-
April 1987. The evidence has been compiled from various
sources, including trade unions, employers and their organisations, news-
papers and journals', and research carried out by IRRU.2 The table,
below, lists eighty cases. Eleven relate to picketing, sixteen to secondary
action and forty- seven to pre-strike
ballot^.^
In all but fifteen cases
(sixty-five), the plaintiff was the direct employer (or ex-employer)
of
the
defendants or their union.
For
the majority of employers, their single aim
in seeking the injunction was to lift the industrial action.
To
this end, the
loss
of
union immunities clearly attracted employers. In all but thirteen
cases they cited the union(s) as defendant(s), and while the outcome of
the injunctions was generally favourable for employers, they proved
readier to initiate contempt proceedings when injunctions were defied
than was the case under the Employment Act 1980 when union funds
retained their immunity.
One or two introductory comments need to be made. The list here almost
certainly represents less than the total number
of
injunctions actually sought
or obtained. It includes three cases in which an employer threatened, either
implicitly
or
overtly
to
seek an injunction against proposed and allegedly
unlawful industrial action. They represent a use
of
the law which anecdotal
evidence from union officials as well as an earlier study (Evans 1983: 1985b)
suggests is a not uncommon practice.
NUMBER
OF
INJUNCTIONS
Eighty injunctions were recorded between May 1984
-
April 1987.
Seventy-seven of these were actually sought, and three involved employers
threatening
to
seek injunctions or damages.
Of
those actually sought,
injunctions were secured in seventy-three cases and refused in four.4
*Senior Research Fellow, ESRC-sponsored Industrial Relations Research Unit, University
of
Warwick. The author wishes
to
thank the Editor, Paul Edwards, Roy Lewis and Keith Sisson
for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
420
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
PLAINTIFFS
Just as in the period 1980-84, in the overwhelming majority
of
injunctions
between May 1984- April 1987, sixty-five in all, the plaintiff was the direct
employer or ex-employer of the defendants. Three cases involved associated
or subsidiary employers, and twelve were third party customers or suppliers
of the employer in dispute. Of those cases where the size (by employment)
was known, fifty-nine were sought by employers with more than five
hundred employees, and thirteen by employers with less than five hundred
employees. All plaintiffs recognised trade unions.
DEFENDANTS
The availability of injunctions and damages against unions and the
loss
of
immunities for union funds have clearly proven attractive
to
employers. In
only thirteen cases were the defendants members, workplace representatives
or local, full time officials, compared with sixty-seven in which the unions
were defendants. Union experience of injunctions is now spread widely
across many more unions. From May 1984 -April 1987, twenty-six unions
had injunctions threatened or issued against them, six of these (NGA,
SOGAT ’82, TGWU, GMBATU, NUR, and NAS/UWT) on five or more
occasions.
GROUNDS FOR INJUNCTION
Table 1 gives details
of
the grounds on which the injunctions were sought.
Unlawful picketing accounted for eleven
of
the injunctions, of which eight
were for picketing other than at the pickets’ own place of work and three
were for picketing in excessive or intimidatory numbers. Secondary action
provided the grounds for sixteen injunctions,
of
which thirteen were for
blacking. Pre-strike ballots accounted for almost two thirds of all in-
junctions, forty-seven in total. Of these, forty-three involved no ballot
before strike action was called; three cases were over the wording
of
the
ballot form (see below); and one
-
Monsanto
-
was over the balloting
procedure (IRLIB 315,1986).
Of
the remaining six cases, one was brought
(unsuccessfully) by the government’s Crown Agents against civil service
unions on grounds of the political nature
of
the strike in the light
of
the
redefinition
of
‘trade dispute’ by the Employment Act 1982 s.18. A second
was secured by the Department of Employment against a CPSA official in
respect
of
a union instruction to boycott a scheme to introduce ethnic
monitoring at Job Centres. The instruction was unlawful because it was not
‘connected with’ the terms and conditions
of
employment as redefined by
the Employment Act 1982 a.18. A third was brought by employers in the
To continue reading
Request your trial