The Gazette 1967/71

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 Accordingly it had given notice that recognition would be withdrawn from the Guild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