|
''Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants'' () (UKHL 1 ), commonly known as the ''Taff Vale case'', is a formative case in UK labour law. It held that, at common law, unions could be liable for loss of profits to employers that were caused by taking strike action. The labour movement reacted to ''Taff Vale'' with outrage; the case gave impetus to the establishment of the UK Labour Party and was soon reversed by the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It was reversed at common law in ''Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch'' ().〔() AC 435〕 ==Facts== A trade union, called the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, went on strike to protest against the company's treatment of John Ewington, who had been refused higher pay and was punished for his repeated requests by being moved to a different station. When the Taff Vale Railway Company employed replacement staff, the strikers engaged in a sabotage campaign, greasing the rails and uncoupling the carriages. The Taff Vale Railway Company thus decided to engage with the union for the purpose of collective bargaining and the workers returned to work. The Railway Company, however, decided to sue the union for damages and won. Previously it had been thought that trade unions could not be sued, because they were unincorporated entities, under the law of trusts. Farwell J held in favour of the company. His decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal, but restored on further appeal to the House of Lords. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Rly Servants」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|