Odger's English Common Law

TRADE DISPUTES ACT, 1906. 633
against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all
other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged
to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be
entertained by any court." * And this prohibition applies whether the
alleged tortious acts were committed in contemplation or furtherance of a
trade dispute or not. 2 " Nothing in this section shall affect the
liability of the trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided
for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, 3 section 9, except in respect of any
tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contemplation or
in furtherance of a trade dispute." *
A trade dispute is defined in the Act as " any dispute between employers
and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected
with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment,
or with the conditions of labour, of any person." 6
The meaning of the phrase " trade dispute " was much discussed both in
the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords in the case of Conway v.
Wade. 6 In that case the plaintiff, a member of a trade union, was fined
10s. for a breach of the union rules in 1900 ; this fine was not paid. In
1907 the plaintiff joined another branch of the union, and was in
employment with other union men as a boiler scaler. The defendant,
who was the district delegate of the union, at the instigation of some
of the plaintiff's fellow-workmen who knew of the unpaid fine and of the
treasurer of the branch of the union which had imposed it, went to the
foreman of the plaintiff's employers and told him that, if the plaintiff
were not " stopped," there would be trouble with the men. The defendant
had no authority from the executive of the union to do this. As a
result of the defendant's interference the plaintiff was dismissed from his
employment. He brought an action against the defendant in the county
court and recovered £50 damages. The jury found that at the time of
the defendant's interference there was no trade dispute existing or con-
templated and that the defendant's threats were uttered in order to compel
the plaintiff to pay a union fine, to punish him for not paying it and to
prevent him from getting or retaining employment. These findings were
upheld by the House of Lords.
When this case was before the Court of Appeal, Kennedy, L. J.,
expressed tbe opinion that it was clear from the language of section 5 (3)
that the Act applied " not only in the case of a trade dispute between
employer and workmen, but also in the case of a dispute between workmen
and workmen, where no dispute with the employer has arisen." ' But
a dispute between two firms of employers is apparently not a trade dispute
within the meaning of the Act.
i S. 4, sub-s. (1).
2 Vacher