Save Fight Unlawful

Scan page 9

NUJ, on strike against the Yewspaper Society, tne provincial employers' associition, asked their members It the Press Association to slack all copy to local ›apers.

To further escalate the lispute they asked members in national newspapers not o touch copy from the Press Issociation.

Under today's law, the iction on the nationals vould be automatically llegal. The action at the Press Association would be ubject to the tests of purrose and likelihood of uccess.

In this case the Court of Appeal said that the purpose vas not to win the dispute. * was simply to raise the norale of the strikers.

This hair-splitting ipproach gives a clue as to low the courts will deal vith these tests.

Vhat about picketing?

The Tories previous Deasure, • Prior's" 1980 Imployment Act, limited be right to picket to a right top arivers or pedestrians ven for five minutes just to ut your case and the numer and conduct of pickets is ompletely in the hands of he police.

've heard that Tebbit's law Iso makes it easier to sack trikers.

It certainly does. The tory goes like this. The last abour government said that n employer was protected : he sacked all the workers ho were on. strike and efused to take any of them ack.

If he selected, he had gal problems. But this mployers charter caused tanagement problems. If hirty workers struck, five eturned after a week. and hen a further four weeks ato the strike the employer acked the rest, the courts ecided that he had selected by y taking back the original five.

The new law changes this nd allows the employer to iscriminate, thus placing in his is hands a stronger weapon o break strikes.

THE CUTS

When you say "open to legal action" and "untewful" what exactly do you mean? Would employers have to sue workers? What. would be their remedies?

The Tory anti-union laws are civil law. The employers have to do their own dirty work. The policé do not do it for them.

If an employer feels the law is being broken, he goes before a High Court judge and asks for an interim injunction. This is an order to the union to call the action off. until the full hearing.

At that hearing, which may be months later, the employer can return and ask for compensation for loss of production.

Most employers never return to court. They simply want the injunction. They want the strike called off.

To get an injunction the employer does not have to prove his case to the hilt. He has to show only that he has some kind of a case and that the balance of convenience means that the strike should be called off.

Judges always say "If the union wins its case later on, they can go on strike then. They have lost nothing by waiting. The employer, however, should not have to lose production through industrial action which may subsequently be found to be unlawful."

So they nearly: always grant injunctions. : This ignores the industrial reality: how are you supposed to negotiate over wages with industrial action ruled out? If you wait six months for industrial action in a victimisation case, you will wait foreveI.

It means that the injunetion always works as weapon of the employer to What if you ignore injunction?

You are in contempt of court, and can be fined like Sean Geraghty or imprisoned like the Pentonville dockers. It is up to the Judge.

Who can the employer sue -the steward, the official or the union?

Since 1906, when the Trades Disputes Act overruled the House of Lords judgement in the Taff Vale case, union funds have not been liable to pay compensation to employers and others directly affected by unlawful industrial action.

Legal cases have been brought against individual trade unionists. Now they can be brought against the union itself.

However, this will only be so when the unlawful industrial action has been authorised or ratified by the union executive or other bodies which have authority under rule to do so. There may be legal arguments as there were under the 1971 Industrial Relations Act as to whether shop stewards have the authority to take industrial action. If they do, the union will be liable.

However, there is a clear way out for the union. If the executive repudiates the unlawful industrial action as soon as is reasonably practicable and doesn't take any steps inconsistent with that repudiation, then the union will not be held responsible.

If injunctions are issued against unions and disobeyed by their members, the employers remedy will be contempt: of court. The employer will also be able to claim damages for loss of production.

There is a sliding scale so that unions with fewer than 5,000 members have to pay damages up to £12,500 and those with more than 100,000 will have to face awards up to £250,000.

So the Tories aim to get unions to concentrate power to take industrial action at the top of the structure, and to get top leaders to dissuade and discipline members who take industrial action that could lead to the use of the law - thus centralising decision-making at the expense of democracy. What is the purpose of the legal restraints on industrial action?

To outlaw solidarity and put the unions under the atomiser.

Today fewer and fewer disputes can be won at one workplace. The sectionalism of our movement is a big plus for Thatcher and the purpose of Tebbit's law is to keep it that way, by limiting legally the means you will use to extend your actio

Scan page 10

VIOBILISING COMMITTEE IN DEFENCE OF TRADE UNION

----- pull-quotes -----

SAVE FIGHT UNLAWFUL THE CUTS