Two big business organs, the Hconomist and the Financial Times, were quick to comment on the implications of the Rookes wv. Barnard settlement, Their conclusions gure striking confirmation to the warn ing given in our editorial, The Financial Times carried an item by Justinian, who writes on legal matters for that parer, and he had this to says
Te eeeelthis change in the 'rules of the game! of colisctive bargai— ning will subtly change the whole pattern of industrial rolations. Io more can the trade unionist confidently fall back on the workman's inviolable right to strike - this ultimate weapon in the trade unionists art of forcing better pay and working conditions is no longer inviolable, In a variety of ways the trade union official will have to watch his step; in matters involving labour relations he has always bsen free to brandish the strike weapon in the face of employers so long as his threst carried no intimation of violent action.
Now even the non-violent kind of threat — ‘unless Bloggins is dismissed from your employment by Friday we shall call out our members on striket — is fraught with dangers, One of the most serious consequences is that the public may witness the courts handing down a series of lebour injunctions which would exacerbate the alteady fierce antagoniem, so redolent of the 19th century scene, which has now been resuscifatedby the law lords. Instead of a non-union onmployee threat— ened with dismissal because of union officials! threats to strike, sesking danares in the courts he may ask—-and-premmebly fat — injunctions from the courts stopping any intimidation by union officials of employers.
‘forsover, the employers 2nd oven their customers,..could similarly haul trade unionists before the courts,...+..The unions, not without some justification, will see the Lords! decision in terms of the law throwing in its weight once again on the employers! sides...a coach—-and -four has been driven through the section of the Trade Disputes ict which for 60 years, it was thought, gave complete immmity to union officials who in pursuance of their members!’ cause deliberately intefered with an employer's tmsinesa.ce.s
"The section in the 1906 Act has been rendered migatory, simply because it now covers only lawful interferences, which probably did not need stetutory protection in the first place: and moreover the demand will undoubtedly come for remedial Parliamentary action. Trade unionists see the case as an exact historical repetition of the Teff Vale case 60 years ago which held that a trade union could be sued as mueh for wrongful acts of ite members and cfficials....™
The Economist, in its January issue, covered mich of the same ground but in addition had this to say: “Under the Contracts of iaspley— ment Bill, all workers are to be offered contracts. TDeubtless many of them will specify that employeas cannot be sacked save for industrial misconduct Gr under specified mules for dealing with remuindancy... the sacking of any worker, ,ina closed shop dispute, would presumably maka the union officials who organised the closed shop dispute liable for danares. Pe ani
SE TT A rr