鲁克斯诉巴纳德案及其后(1964年)

Q2 Arts and Humanities
O. Kahn-Freund
{"title":"鲁克斯诉巴纳德案及其后(1964年)","authors":"O. Kahn-Freund","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rookes v. Barnard [1964], extending and applying the tort of intimidation to industrial disputes, is the most momentous decision on trade unions and trade disputes since the Taff Vale case [1901]. It is a frontal attack on the right to strike. For those who have to give notice to terminate their contract of employment – most workers after the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 – the threat of damages will hang over them, and over any union officers who act in concert with them. Any firm of suppliers or of customers of a firm, which lose a contract with that firm owing to a threat of strike against it in breach of the required notice, will also be able to claim for damages. Moreover, the ‘labour injunction’ is being revived. The repressive tendencies of the courts, which in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had to be repeatedly counteracted by Parliament, are on the point of being revived. A new statute is required to overrule Rookes.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rookes v. Barnard — and After (1964)\",\"authors\":\"O. Kahn-Freund\",\"doi\":\"10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Rookes v. Barnard [1964], extending and applying the tort of intimidation to industrial disputes, is the most momentous decision on trade unions and trade disputes since the Taff Vale case [1901]. It is a frontal attack on the right to strike. For those who have to give notice to terminate their contract of employment – most workers after the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 – the threat of damages will hang over them, and over any union officers who act in concert with them. Any firm of suppliers or of customers of a firm, which lose a contract with that firm owing to a threat of strike against it in breach of the required notice, will also be able to claim for damages. Moreover, the ‘labour injunction’ is being revived. The repressive tendencies of the courts, which in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had to be repeatedly counteracted by Parliament, are on the point of being revived. A new statute is required to overrule Rookes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Rookes诉Barnard案[1964]将恐吓侵权行为扩展并适用于劳资纠纷,是自Taff Vale案[1901]以来关于工会和贸易纠纷的最重大裁决。这是对打击权的正面攻击。对于那些必须发出终止雇佣合同通知的人——1963年《雇佣合同法》之后的大多数工人——损害赔偿的威胁将笼罩在他们身上,也笼罩在任何与他们一致行动的工会官员身上。任何一家公司的供应商或客户的公司,如果因违反要求的通知而受到罢工威胁而失去了与该公司的合同,也可以要求赔偿损失。此外,“劳工禁令”正在恢复。法院的镇压倾向在19世纪和20世纪初不得不一再遭到议会的抵制,现在正处于复兴的边缘。需要制定一项新的法令来推翻Rookes。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rookes v. Barnard — and After (1964)
Rookes v. Barnard [1964], extending and applying the tort of intimidation to industrial disputes, is the most momentous decision on trade unions and trade disputes since the Taff Vale case [1901]. It is a frontal attack on the right to strike. For those who have to give notice to terminate their contract of employment – most workers after the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 – the threat of damages will hang over them, and over any union officers who act in concert with them. Any firm of suppliers or of customers of a firm, which lose a contract with that firm owing to a threat of strike against it in breach of the required notice, will also be able to claim for damages. Moreover, the ‘labour injunction’ is being revived. The repressive tendencies of the courts, which in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had to be repeatedly counteracted by Parliament, are on the point of being revived. A new statute is required to overrule Rookes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信