Stewards' victorie weaken union control, QC
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Legal argument continued in the Hou of Lords this week in the appeal in whit five Law Lords are being asked to give tl final ruling on whether the TGWU im responsible for the action of its six stewards at Liverpool and Hull docks i calling for the blacking by five unia members of the lorries of three transpo firms.
Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltt Craddock Bros of Wolverhampton, an Panalpina Services Ltd and Panalpin Northern Ltd of Bradford, are challengir an Appeal Court ruling absolving the unio from liability. As a result of the ruling — which reversed an NIRC decision — fine of £55,000 against the union have been st aside.
Opening his submission for the union, M Peter Pain, QC, claimed that when docker at the two docks were asked to pt containers onto ships they were being asket in an economic sense, to "cut their ow throats".
Submitting the Appeal Court rulin should be upheld, Mr Pain said that at Hu it was clear beyond all peradventure the from the word go the shop stewards wer acting in direct defiance of the union' wishes. He also submitted that at Liverpoc they had not acted with the impliel authority of the union., It had been assumed that the shoi stewards, by following an anti-executive lin and blacking individual firms to try to forc them into line, were bringing a benefit to th union. "In my submission that is an entire]: false analysis," he maintained. "The mon victories that the shop stewards have in their campaign, the more difficult it is fo the union executives to retain effectivi control.
Mr Pain was still making his submissio on Wednesday when the appeal entered it seventh day.