not be made a condition for admission to the union (a). registrar. If any member of a trade union alleges that he Appeal to is aggrieved by a breach of any of the above rules, he may complain to the registrar, who, after giving the complainant and any representative of the union an opportunity of being heard, may, if he considers that such a breach has been committed, make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just; and such order is binding on all parties without appeal and is not removable into any Court of Law or restrainable by injunction (in Scotland, by interdict) and on being recorded in the County Court (in Scotland, the Sheriff Court), may be enforced as if it had been an order of that Court (b). The effect of limiting the right of appeal to the registrar is to preclude the jurisdiction of the Courts. Apart from this express limitation it is doubtful how far the provision, that a member shall not be excluded from the benefits of the union by reason of his being exempt from the Parliamentary fund, is enforceable at law. Where powers had been expressly given by statute to recover benefits under a nomination, such powers were held to be inoperative having regard to the limitation of jurisdiction imposed by section four of the Trade Union Act, 1871 (c). (a) The Trade Union Act, 1913, s. 3 (1) (b). (b) Ibid., s. 3 (2). Every order of a County Court may be enforced against all persons bound by it in the same manner as a judgment to the like effect (c) Vide Chapters IV. & V.; powers of Extent of It is probable that the registrar's powers extend Registrar. not only to satisfying himself that the above rules exist but also to enquiring whether such rules are being enforced. This power is probably given him inferentially under his general power to withdraw registration certificates if, in his opinion, the combination is no longer being actually carried on as a trade union (a). Registra tion. Amendments affecting the registration of trade unions are made by the 1913 Act. No combination may be registered as a trade union by the registrar, unless, having regard to the constitution of the combination, its principal objects are in his opinion "statutory objects" (b), and the registrar may withdraw the certificate of registration of any such registered trade union if the constitution of the union has been altered in such a manner that, in his opinion, the principal objects of the union are no longer statutory objects, or if in his opinion the principal objects for which the union is actually carried on are not statutory objects (c). The words of this section are very wide and appear to give the registrar considerable judicial power. It would seem that, in considering the withdrawal of a certificate of registration, though not in granting it, he may now enquire into the actual conduct of the trade union as well as into its constitution. Under the 1871 and 1876 Acts the registrar must cancel the certificate of registration if he is satisfied that the purposes of a trade union (a) Infra., p. xxxiii. (c) The Trade Union Act, 1913, s. 2 (2). are or have become unlawful, but apparently he has no power under those statutes to cancel the certificate if a trade union, having lawful purposes, acts unlawfully, except when (after due notice from him) it wilfully violates the Trade Union Acts (a). tion. Any unregistered trade union, without registering, Certifica may at any time apply to the registrar for a certificate that it is a combination, which is a trade union, and if the registrar (b), having regard to the constitution of the union and the mode in which the union is being carried on, is satisfied that the principal objects of the union are statutory and that the union is actually carried on for those objects, he must grant such certificate. The registrar, on application made by any person, may withdraw such certificate, if satisfied (after giving the union an opportunity of being heard) that the certificate is no longer justified. The registrar's powers are thus greater in the case. of certified than registered unions. In the latter case, both in granting and withdrawing a certificate, he may have regard not only to the constitution of the union, but also to the mode in which it is carried on. These powers, together with those relating (a) (1871), 34 & 35 Vict. c. 3, s. 6; 34 & 40 Vict. c. 22, s. 8, infra, p. 32. (b) The registrar means with regard to an unregistered trade union, whose principal office is situated in England or Wales, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, or, in relation to an unregistered trade union whose Appeal to Immunity under Trade Act, 1906. to the approval of political rules, invest the registrar with considerable discretion. The dictum of Blackburn, J., that the duties of the registrar are ministerial and not judicial, therefore requires modification (a). It is, however, expressly provided that any person aggrieved: (1) By any refusal of the registrar : (a) to register a combination as a trade union, or (b) to certify that an unregistered union is (2) By the withdrawal by the registrar of— (b) a certificate that an unregistered union is a trade union; may appeal to the High Court (in Scotland to the Direct Interference with the Disposal of Labour and The words "trade dispute" in the 1906 Act, which were reviewed in Conway v. Wade,1 have been further defined in Dallimore v. Williams and Jesson.2 1 2 [1909] A. C. 506, infra, (1912), 29 T. L. R. 67; 57 S. J. 77. p. 57. (a) Infra, pp. 35 and 36. R. v. Registrar of Friendly Societies (1872), 7 Q. B. 741. (b) The Trade Union Act, 1913, s. 2 (4). It is doubtful whether a refusal of the registrar to grant a certificate While it was held in the former case that "the immunity cannot be fairly confined to an act done by a party to the dispute," and that "an outsider is equally exempt from liability, although he may induce either masters or men to break contracts of employment," it was decided in Dallimore's Case that the term "trade dispute " is not confined to a dispute between an employer and his own men. 1 liability With regard to criminal intimidation under the Criminal Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, to for interparticipate in shouting menacing words with others ference. who actually throw missiles may amount to a commission of the offence.2 liability ference. In the civil action of procurement of breaches of Civil contract, the existence of malice on the part of the for interprocurer, apart from any specific wrongful act, apparently does not affect the immunity given by the Trade Disputes Act, 1906.3 Where actual threats are proved to accompany the procurement of breach of or prevention of formation of contract, the immunity does not arise. But to refuse to work unless a certain person joins a union does not amount to a "threat" sufficient to destroy the immunity.5 of union The case of Vacher & Sons, Ltd. v. London Society Liability of Compositors has decided that the immunity of a 6 1 Per Lord Loreburn, L.C., [1909] A. C. 506, at p. 512, affirming Cozens-Hardy, M.R., [1908] 2 K. B. at p. 849. 2 Young v. Peck (1912), 29 T. L. R. 31. Dallimore v. Williams and Jesson (1912), 29 T. L. R. 67; 57 S. J. 77. 4 Per Lord Loreburn, L.C., in Conway v. Wade, [1909] A. C. 506, at p. 511; infra, p. 69. 5 Santer v. Busnach (1913), 29 T. L. R. 214. 6 29 T. L. R. 73; 57 S. J. 75; H. L. [1912] W. N. 268; infra, p. 73. for tort. |