QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Gate Gourmet London Limited |
Proposed |
|
- and - |
Claimant/ Applicant |
|
(1) Transport and General Workers Union (2) The Individuals Named in Schedule 1 to this Order (3) All such PERSONS UNKNOWN engaging in unlawful picketing of the Applicant's premises and/or otherwise assaulting, threatening, intimidating, harassing, molesting or otherwise abusing the employees of the Applicant or its associated companies |
Proposed Defendants/Respondents |
____________________
Mr Damian Brown (instructed by Thompsons) for the Defendant
Hearing dates : 20th and 21st August 2005
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Fulford :
The History
"Unfortunately, the dispute, in picketing terms has escalated in the last few days as the pickets have gone way beyond peaceful protest at the designated area and this is now having a very serious effect on our remaining workforce, whom we feel we now have to take action to protect.
It has now become clear in the last couple of days that the increasing cumulative effect of the intimidatory actions of the pickets (is) causing employees, particularly Transport Employees who have to drive past the pickets in carrying out their duties, to feel so threatened that they are now openly fearful of coming into work at all. In increasing numbers they have been staying away, many of them signing off sick."
Number of defendant | Name of defendant | Summary of incident |
Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 | Mr Rai, Mr Patel, Mr Jattu, Mr Ghattora, Mr S. Singh and Mr Tutt | Page 109. An employee on 13.8.05 drove past site B. Pickets invited her to slow down. She drove on and went round the roundabout. 8 pickets crossed the road to the bus stop. The employee stopped and spoke with them and they asked her why she was working and why she did not join the strike. She gave her reasons and drove on. |
Defendant 3 | G. Bhullar | Pages 56, 59 and 62. On 16.8.05 he used "V signs", hand gestures, engaged in lots of shouting and called out to employees to join the picket. Furthermore, on that day he "verbally abused" a driver. |
Defendant 8 | Mr Hoti | Page 72. An employee states that on 15.8.05 he was abused by a group that included this defendant when he left the premises. He was told he should be ashamed and that he is a traitor (I am unable to read the remainder of the entry). |
Defendant 9 | Mr J Grewal | No details provided. |
Defendant 10 | Mrs D Saran | Pages 88, 99 and 101. Whilst at site B on 13.8.05 she was part of a group that shouted and booed at an employee who was at the roundabout. Thereafter, on 14/15.8.05, she stopped in front of an employees car, shouting swearing and screaming. Furthermore, at site A she was with two other pickets and she shouted out "we will beat you up", whilst one of her companions shouted "you are a dog of the management" and another said "I will fuck you later on". |
Defendants 11 and 12 | Mrs Kundi and Mrs Jhaj | Pages 88, 97 and 100. Mrs Kundi stopped in front of an employees car, shouting swearing and screaming on 14/15.8.05. Mrs Jhaj was with two other pickets, one of whom shouted out "we will beat you up"; Mrs Jhaj shouted "you are a dog of the management" and another companion said "I will fuck you later on". On 13.8.05, both defendants approached a car at a roundabout and started to shout whilst holding a banner which said "shame on you". |
Defendants 13 and 14 | R. Mahli and J. Singh | Page 99. On 14.8.05 an employee was getting out of his car when pickets screamed out "do not go in, come out, we will feed you". |
Defendants 15, 16 and 17 | N. Sharma, J. Sidhu and V. Singh | Page 98. On the 14.8.05 they directed "a lot of swearing" at an employee, asking him to join them. |
Defendant 18 | Mr S. Grewal | Pages 24, 72, 87 and 98. Generally it is said he has been intimidating employees. On 17.8.05 an employee was walking towards a bus stop when Grewal shouted out "you mother fucker. If you need more money make your wife a prostitute". An employee stated that on 15.8.05 he was abused by a group that included this defendant when he left the premises. He was told he should be ashamed and that he is a traitor (I am unable to read the remainder of the entry). Also on 15.8.05 this defendant shouted and swore at and abused an employee, calling her a bitch as she walked by. On 14.8.05 this defendant was part of a group that engaged in a lot of swearing and asked an employee to join them. |
Defendant 19 | Mr Matharu | Page 97. On 14.8.05 Matharu was with two other pickets one of whom shouted out "we will beat you up"; another shouted "you are a dog of the management" and Matharu said "I will fuck you later on". |
Defendant 20 | Mr Ashok Gill | Pages 89 and 92. Two drivers reported this defendant shouting at them on 15.8.05. |
Defendant 21 | Mrs S Mundy | Page 88. S Mundy stopped in front of an employees car, shouting swearing and screaming on 14/15.8.05. |
Defendant 22 | Mr Nital Singh | Page 81. On 15.8.05 as an employee was leaving Nital Singh stepped forward, shouting abuse; he was holding his genitals and was making a very rude gesture. |
Defendant 23 | Mr Nirmal Singh | No details provided. |
Defendants 24, 25, 26 and 27 | M. Grewal, B. Dhindse, H.K. Sidhu and Mr Hoti | Page 72. An employee stated that on 15.8.05 he was abused by a group that included this defendant when he left the premises. He was told he should be ashamed and that he is a traitor (I am unable to read the remainder of the entry). |
Defendant 28 | Mr Dhaliwal | Page 43. On 16.8.05 he shouted out scab to an employee and used obscene hand gestures whilst at site A. |
Defendant 29 | Mr Kang | Page 50. On 16.8.05 he rang an employees mobile and swore at his mother, sister and father in Punjabi. |
Defendant 30 | Mr H Sekhon | Pages 59 and 67. On 16.8.05 he called out to employees to join the picket and "used hand gestures", and he ran down the hill towards a passing driver. |
Defendant 31 | Tish Adinal | Page 53. This defendant on 16.8.05 used a "wanker" hand gesture. |
Defendant 32 | B. Khakhar | Page 54. On 16.8.05 this defendant shouted abuse and called a crew member a "wanker". He was "very angry". |
Defendants 33 and 34 | B. Mayer and Gary Mullens | Page 60. On 16.8.05 they used a wanker hand gesture towards a catering team. |
Defendant 35 | A. Dhugha | Page 62. He was one of two who on 16.8.05 "directed verbal abuse" at the driver of one of the claimant's company cars. |
Defendant 36 | Mark Watson | Pages 4 – 16 and 26. On 18.8.05 Watson entered the unit and at the gates he abused one of he guards. He blocked a truck, the stop button of which he hit. He threatened the team telling them they were "dead" and he mentioned certain members of staff who he threatened to kill. He threatened to give particular employees the kicking of their lives. Members of staff were visibly shaken by his actions. |
Defendant 37 | Kevin Hall (Regional Organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union) | Pages, 35, 121, 127 and 128. On 16.8.05, an employee at a bus stop near site B was spoken to by Hall, who said "go to your own country" whilst using a lot of the "f" word. He was "stirring up trouble" and this employee and others were scared to go past. Hall has been filming events outside the site, and particularly of employees entering and leaving. |
Mr Dhillon – a union representative and vice chairman of the Joint Consultative Committee (present at the picket sites on 11, 12 and 13 August and on two or three occasions during the period 15 – 19 August);
Mr Sandhu – a union representative and chairman of the Joint Consultative Committee (present at site B on 16, 17 and 18 August);
Mr Sekhon – a union representative (present at site B on 17 and 18 August);
Mr Atwal – a union representative (present at site B on 17 August);
Mr Younus – a union representative (present at site B on 16 and 18 August);
Mr Hall – a regional industrial organiser (present on 16 August);
Oliver Richardson – a regional industrial organiser (present on 11 August); and
Mrs Atwal – a union representative (present at site B on 16 August).
The Application
The relevant statutory provisions
"Liability of trade unions in proceedings in tort
20.— Liability of trade union in certain proceedings in tort.
(1) Where proceedings in tort are brought against a trade union—
(a) on the ground that an act—
(i) induces another person to break a contract or interferes or induces another person to interfere with its performance, or
(ii) consists in threatening that a contract (whether one to which the union is a party or not) will be broken or its performance interfered with, or that the union will induce another person to break a contract or interfere with its performance, or
(b) in respect of an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or to procure the doing of an act which, if it were done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable in tort on such a ground,
then, for the purpose of determining in those proceedings whether the union is liable in respect of the act in question, that act shall be taken to have been done by the union if, but only if, it is to be taken to have been authorised or endorsed by the trade union in accordance with the following provisions.
(2) An act shall be taken to have been authorised or endorsed by a trade union if it was done, or was authorised or endorsed—
(a) by any person empowered by the rules to do, authorise or endorse acts of the kind in question, or
(b) by the principal executive committee or the president or general secretary, or
(c) by any other committee of the union or any other official of the union (whether employed by it or not).
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (2)—
(a) any group of persons constituted in accordance with the rules of the union is a committee of the union; and
(b) an act shall be taken to have been done, authorised or endorsed by an official if it was done, authorised or endorsed by, or by any member of, any group of persons of which he was at the material time a member, the purposes of which included organising or co-ordinating industrial action.
(4) The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) apply notwithstanding anything in the rules of the union, or in any contract or rule of law, but subject to the provisions of section 21 (repudiation by union of certain acts)."
(5) Where for the purposes of any proceedings an act is by virtue of this section taken to have been done by a trade union, nothing in this section shall affect the liability of any other person, in those or any other proceedings, in respect of that act.
(6) In proceedings arising out of an act which is by virtue of this section taken to have been done by a trade union, the power of the court to grant an injunction or interdict includes power to require the union to take such steps as the court considers appropriate for ensuring—
(a) that there is no, or no further, inducement of persons to take part or to continue to take part in industrial action, and
(b) that no person engages in any conduct after the granting of the injunction or interdict by virtue of having been induced before it was granted to take part or to continue to take part in industrial action.
The provisions of subsections (2) to (4) above apply in relation to proceedings for failure to comply with any such injunction or interdict as they apply in relation to the original proceedings.
21. Repudiation by union of certain acts.
(1) An act shall not be taken to have been authorised or endorsed by a trade union by virtue only of paragraph (c) of section 20(2) if it was repudiated by the executive, president or general secretary as soon as reasonably practicable after coming to the knowledge of any of them.
(2) Where an act is repudiated—
(a) written notice of the repudiation must be given to the committee or official in question, without delay, and
(b) the union must do its best to give individual written notice of the fact and date of repudiation, without delay—
(i) to every member of the union who the union has reason to believe is taking part, or might otherwise take part, in industrial action as a result of the act, and
(ii) to the employer of every such member.
(3) The notice given to members in accordance with paragraph (b)(i) of subsection (2) must contain the following statement—
`Your union has repudiated the call (or calls) for industrial action to which this notice relates and will give no support to unofficial industrial action taken in response to it (or them). If you are dismissed while taking unofficial industrial action, you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal.'
(4) If subsection (2) or (3) is not complied with, the repudiation shall be treated as ineffective.
(5) An act shall not be treated as repudiated if at any time after the union concerned purported to repudiate it the executive, president or general secretary has behaved in a manner which is inconsistent with the purported repudiation."
"PART V
INDUSTRIAL ACTION
Protection of acts in contemplation or furtherance of trade dispute
219.— Protection from certain tort liabilities.
(1) An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute is not actionable in tort on the ground only—
(a) that it induces another person to break a contract or interferes or induces another person to interfere with its performance, or
(b) that it consists in his threatening that a contract (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken or its performance interfered with, or that he will induce another person to break a contract or interfere with its performance.
(2) An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure the doing of an act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute is not actionable in tort if the act is one which if done without any such agreement or combination would not be actionable in tort.
(3) Nothing in subsections (1) and (2) prevents an act done in the course of picketing from being actionable in tort unless it is done in the course of attendance declared lawful by section 220 (peaceful picketing).
220.— Peaceful picketing.
(1) It is lawful for a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to attend—
(a) at or near his own place of work, or
(b) if he is an official of a trade union, at or near the place of work of a member of the union whom he is accompanying and whom he represents,
for the purpose only of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working.
(2) If a person works or normally works—
(a) otherwise than at any one place, or
(b) at a place the location of which is such that attendance there for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1) is impracticable,
his place of work for the purposes of that subsection shall be any premises of his employer from which he works or from which his work is administered.
(3) In the case of a worker not in employment where—
(a) his last employment was terminated in connection with a trade dispute, or
(b) the termination of his employment was one of the circumstances giving rise to a trade dispute,
in relation to that dispute his former place of work shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as being his place of work.
(4) A person who is an official of a trade union by virtue only of having been elected or appointed o be a representative of some of the members of the union shall be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1) as representing only those members; but otherwise an official of a union shall be regarded for those purposes as representing all its members.
221.— Restrictions on grant of injunctions and interdicts.
(1) Where—
(a) an application for an injunction or interdict is made to a court in the absence of the party against whom it is sought or any representative of his, and
(b) he claims, or in the opinion of the court would be likely to claim, that he acted in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute,
the court shall not grant the injunction or interdict unless satisfied that all steps which in the circumstances were reasonable have been taken with a view to securing that notice of the application and an opportunity of being heard with respect to the application have been given to him.
(2) Where—
(a) an application for an interlocutory injunction is made to a court pending the trial of an action, and
(b) the party against whom it is sought claims that he acted in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute,
the court shall, in exercising its discretion whether or not to grant the injunction, have regard to the likelihood of that party's succeeding at the trial of the action in establishing any matter which would afford a defence to the action under section 219 (protection from certain tort liabilities) or section 220 (peaceful picketing). This subsection does not extend to Scotland.
The position of the Transport and General Workers Union (the T & G) (the First Proposed Defendant)
"Your union has repudiated the call (or calls) for industrial action to which this notice relates and will give no support to unofficial action taken in response to it (or them). If you are dismissed whilst taking unofficial industrial action, you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal."
The Application to limit the numbers present at sites A and B
The named defendants
The unnamed defendants
The Undertaking in Damages
Conclusions
Note 1 See the maps at pp 120 and 125 of the bundle. [Back] Note 2 Clerk & Lindsell 18th Ed, para 24 - 142 [Back] Note 3 volume 3, para 3319 [Back] Note 5 Brought into force on 1 May 1992 by the Employment Code of Practice (Picketing) Order 1992, SI 1992/2176. As to the legal status of the Code, see s. 207 of the Act. [Back]