538 / 736
be liable only for the balance. The answer was
yes unless he had made some agreement, express
or implied, to keep them separate. That principle
had been stated and applied in two cases in 1872
and in several cases since then.
But in those cases there was no agreement to
keep the accounts separate. They must be con
trasted with another group where the court had
found an agreement to keep the accounts separate.
So the question was whether in the present case
there was an agreement by the bank to keep the
two accounts separate.
[Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd. v
Westminster Bank Ltd.; Court of Appeal; 29 July
1970 (Lord Denning and Lord Justice Winn, Lord
Justice Buckley dissenting).]
TRADE UNION LAW
Withdrawal of Union Recognition Legal
The Post Office was held to be entitled to
withdraw recognition from the National Guild of
Telephonists. Mr. Justice Brightman dismissed a
motion by Mr. P. J. Gallagher, the Guild's acting
assistent general secretary, and Mr. A. G.
J.
Vincent, a member, who contended that with
drawal constituted a breach of contract and was
ultra vires
the powers of the Post Office.
Mr. Justice Brightman said that Mr. Gallagher
and Mr. Vincent sought injunctions restraining
the Post Office
from withdrawing
recognition
from the Guild as a union representing the male
telephonists and/or from refusing
to negotiate
with or consult the Guild concerning pay, welfare
and other matters affecting male members.
Of
the 52,000
telephonists employed about
10 000 were members of the Guild and about
39,000 of the Union of Post Office Workers. The
majority of the 13,000 male
telephonists were
members of the Guild.
For some years the Post Office had considered
that there would be only one union representing
employees. Accordingly it had given notice that
recognition would be withdrawn from the Guild
from September 1.
His Lordship was concerned only with whether
the Post Office was acting legally.
On the true construction of Paragraph 11 the
Post Office had an absolute discretion as to the
organisations with which it would consult. It
would be strange if it were otherwise.
[Gallagher and another v
the Post Office;
Chancery Division; 29 July 1970.]
TRADE UNION LAW
Right to Work—Loss of Union Card
Trade union rules which gave the union an
unfettered discretion to expel a man without giv
ing him a chance to be heard were strongly criti
cised by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning,
Lord Justices Sachs and Megaw). Lord Denning
thought that such rules were invalid because they
interfered with a man's right to work and might
deprive him of his livelihood, particularly where
a union operated a closed shop or 100 per cent
membership policy. Lord Justice Sachs consid
ered that rules which could enable a union to
withdraw the card of a capable craftsman of good
character for any capricious reason such as the
colour of his hair or his skin was plainly
in
restraint of trade.
The court, on an appeal by the Society of
Graphical and Allied Traders, reduced to £3,500
an award of £7,961 damages made by Mr. justice
Buckley (1970)
1
W.L.R. 379, to Mr. Beresford
Edwards, of Manchester, for the union's admit
tedly wrongful expulsion of him from temporary
membership because, through the union's fault,
his contributions were six weeks in arrears.
The reason was that during the hearing of the
appeal the union gave an undertaking that Mr.
Edwards would be granted full membership, a
status which would give him some priority in
obtaining employment in the industry.
[Edwards v Society of Graphical and Allied
Traders; C.A.; 30 [uly 1970.]
82