TRADES UNIONS AND LIBEL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1602, 20 November 1912, Page 7

TRADES UNIONS AND LIBEL.

IMMUNE PROM PROSECUTION. j By Telegraph—Preea Association—Copyright! London, November 18. ' The House of Lords has decided that { Vacher and Son, printers, are unable to sue the London of Compositors for libel during a trade dispute. HIGHLY PRIVILEGED BODIES. In this caso the question was nhorher j a . trade union. .could be sued for libel since the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, came into force. The point arose on an appeal by the London Society of Compositors and others, who were defendants in an action pending, brought against them by a firm of printers, Messrs. Vacher and Hon, Limited. Tho plaintiffs brought the action against the society and.T. Naylor and A.: E. Holmes, two of the officials, to recover' damages for' alleged conspiracy to libal the plaintiffs and to cause them damage by the publication of falso and malicious statements, and, further, damages for libel contained in a letter v.iitten and published' in pursuance cf the conspiracy to certain firms and political bodies for the purpose of preventing those firms and bodies giving orders tor printing to the plaintiffs. The defendants applied to the Master to. havo th® trado union struck out ol the case, and ho granted the application. Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, in giving judgment in the Court of Appeal in April last, said: "Section 1, Sub-sec-tion 1, of the Trade Disputes Act., 1908, is as follows:—(1) An action against tt. trad® union; whether of worktneh or ,masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves f.nd all other members of the trado union in respect oi any tortious act allowed to have been committed by or on belialf of' the trade union shall not be entertained by any Court." "The general words of this sub-sesti m seem 1 prima facie to relieve trade unions, and whether of workmen or masters and any members or officials thereof, un behalf of themsqly'ffs.'iwj'd.CjiJl other ruem bers of the trade'', union',' in respect of torts alleged to have been committed by or on. behalf of tho trade union from the common law liability to be sued for-torts. The sub-section does not provide u , defence whictf'may be pleaded, biit.p'ib-' vides that no such action shall bo entertained by any . Court." "Tlie 'Pair List', (trade list issued by the defendants) plainly relates to matters affecting trado unions and workmen as such, arid I cannot doubt but that this is an action which cannot i>e cnteitained in any Court;" Lord Justice Farwell, who dissented from the majority, and thought the action should go to trial, said the defendants admitted that they wrongfully conspired together to publish libels of and concerning the plaintiffs, and of and concerning them in the way. :of their business, •and in pursuance of the said ronspiricy the defendants and each of them ful?p)y and maliciously published the .libels thus 1 set out. ; Not all lawful aots wero open to a trade union. Their functions were strictly limited. Por example, it-iias no part of the function of a trade urion to print and publish a newspaper; but if it did, what reason was there ior granting it immunity for any libels that it might think fit to print ?—libelling, for instance, at an election or at any time some politician whom the union desired to punish or to terrorise,' or some employer whose busing they wished to injure, and continuing sUch libels indefinitely. . .