Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

GREAT BRITAIN G.B.4

GREAT BRITAIN G.B.4 Industrial action — injunction - dismissal by employers of workers in dispute-union leaflet campaign to shoppers in supermarkets urging boycott-whether unlawful interference with contracts between employers and supermarkets — indirect inducement- need for evi- dence of supply contracts HEADNOTES Facts The plaintiff employers carried on business as producers of mushrooms and em- ployed, at their North Yorkshire farms, approximately 300 employees who were members of the defendant union. A disagreement arose between the employers and the employees over the former's cost-cutting proposals which led to industrial ac- tion by 89 employees who were subsequently dismissed. The union proposed carry- ing out a campaign which involved the distribution of leaflets by its members outside supermarkets supplied by the employers urging members of the public to support the dismissed employees by boycotting the employers' mushrooms. Following pub- licity about the union's intentions, the employers, who subsequently issued a writ, applied ex parte for interlocutory relief against the union and its officials. The judge granted an interlocutory injunction, subsequently varied on the defendants' applica- tion, which inter alia, restrained the defendants from embarking on the leaflet cam- paign. The judge held that the action constituted the tort of direct interference with http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Labour Law Reports Online Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/great-britain-g-b-4-WnuDfK0ePe

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
eISSN
2211-6028
DOI
10.1163/221160293X00545
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Industrial action — injunction - dismissal by employers of workers in dispute-union leaflet campaign to shoppers in supermarkets urging boycott-whether unlawful interference with contracts between employers and supermarkets — indirect inducement- need for evi- dence of supply contracts HEADNOTES Facts The plaintiff employers carried on business as producers of mushrooms and em- ployed, at their North Yorkshire farms, approximately 300 employees who were members of the defendant union. A disagreement arose between the employers and the employees over the former's cost-cutting proposals which led to industrial ac- tion by 89 employees who were subsequently dismissed. The union proposed carry- ing out a campaign which involved the distribution of leaflets by its members outside supermarkets supplied by the employers urging members of the public to support the dismissed employees by boycotting the employers' mushrooms. Following pub- licity about the union's intentions, the employers, who subsequently issued a writ, applied ex parte for interlocutory relief against the union and its officials. The judge granted an interlocutory injunction, subsequently varied on the defendants' applica- tion, which inter alia, restrained the defendants from embarking on the leaflet cam- paign. The judge held that the action constituted the tort of direct interference with

Journal

International Labour Law Reports OnlineBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1992

There are no references for this article.