The Trade Disputes Act 1965 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, which supported closed shop practices in industrial relations. The principal effect was to reverse the legal position established by Rookes v Barnard in 1964,[1] in which the threat of strike action from a union resulted in the sacking of a worker who had recently left that union. The House of Lords, acting as the highest court of appeal, held that the threat of strike action was unlawful intimidation.
An Act to prevent actions founded on tort, or of reparation, being brought in respect of certain acts done in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes.
The Trades Union Congress was concerned that the case would set a precedent for lawsuits against trade unions in a wide range of circumstances. Civil law had been one of the main tools employers used against unions in their early days until the Trade Disputes Act 1906 gave unions immunity from certain torts (including conspiracy) when taken in pursuit of an industrial dispute.[2] However, intimidation was not covered under the Trades Disputes Act, and it seemed possible that the Rookes vs Barnard judgment would support classifying a strike in any closed shop dispute as unlawful 'intimidation'.
As a result, the Labour government of Harold Wilson introduced legislation to restore the status quo from before the case. The Act specified that a threat to withhold one's own labour or to induce others to do the same could give no cause for action in tort. However, a case of 'intimidation' in the everyday sense (for instance, a threat of physical violence) in the course of an industrial dispute would still be unlawful for the same reasons as set out in the case.[3]
The Conservatives sought to amend the legislation to exclude the protection if the dispute was regarding the continued employment of an individual. That was intended to undermine the practice of the closed shop, the subject of the original case.
The closed shop was eroded by the Conservative government in the 1980s and eventually banned by the Employment Act 1990.
ReferencesEdit
^Paul O'Higgins (April 1966). "Trade Disputes Act, 1965". The Cambridge Law Journal. 24 (1): 34–35. doi:10.1017/S0008197300014008. S2CID 146217767.
^James G. Moher (17 September 2007). "Trade unions and the law – history and a way forward?". History & Policy. Retrieved 14 July 2017.
^J. S. Colyer (16 May 2014). A Modern View of the Law of Torts: The Commonwealth and International. p. 185. ISBN9781483156385.
This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
trade, disputes, 1965, parliament, united, kingdom, which, supported, closed, shop, practices, industrial, relations, principal, effect, reverse, legal, position, established, rookes, barnard, 1964, which, threat, strike, action, from, union, resulted, sacking. The Trade Disputes Act 1965 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which supported closed shop practices in industrial relations The principal effect was to reverse the legal position established by Rookes v Barnard in 1964 1 in which the threat of strike action from a union resulted in the sacking of a worker who had recently left that union The House of Lords acting as the highest court of appeal held that the threat of strike action was unlawful intimidation Trade Disputes Act 1965Act of ParliamentParliament of the United KingdomLong titleAn Act to prevent actions founded on tort or of reparation being brought in respect of certain acts done in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes Citation1965 c 48DatesRoyal assent5 August 1965The Trades Union Congress was concerned that the case would set a precedent for lawsuits against trade unions in a wide range of circumstances Civil law had been one of the main tools employers used against unions in their early days until the Trade Disputes Act 1906 gave unions immunity from certain torts including conspiracy when taken in pursuit of an industrial dispute 2 However intimidation was not covered under the Trades Disputes Act and it seemed possible that the Rookes vs Barnard judgment would support classifying a strike in any closed shop dispute as unlawful intimidation As a result the Labour government of Harold Wilson introduced legislation to restore the status quo from before the case The Act specified that a threat to withhold one s own labour or to induce others to do the same could give no cause for action in tort However a case of intimidation in the everyday sense for instance a threat of physical violence in the course of an industrial dispute would still be unlawful for the same reasons as set out in the case 3 The Conservatives sought to amend the legislation to exclude the protection if the dispute was regarding the continued employment of an individual That was intended to undermine the practice of the closed shop the subject of the original case The closed shop was eroded by the Conservative government in the 1980s and eventually banned by the Employment Act 1990 References Edit Paul O Higgins April 1966 Trade Disputes Act 1965 The Cambridge Law Journal 24 1 34 35 doi 10 1017 S0008197300014008 S2CID 146217767 James G Moher 17 September 2007 Trade unions and the law history and a way forward History amp Policy Retrieved 14 July 2017 J S Colyer 16 May 2014 A Modern View of the Law of Torts The Commonwealth and International p 185 ISBN 9781483156385 This article relating to law in the United Kingdom or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Trade Disputes Act 1965 amp oldid 1154723448, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
