Injunction against unions, officers

Press, 21 August 1982, Page 4

Injunction against unions, officers

It would be difficult to envisage a case more deserving of interim relief. Mr Justice Roper said in the High Court yesterday when granting an interim injunction against two storemenpackers’ unions and three of their officers.

The injunction was sought by Mid-Canterbury Industries, Ltd, which had to lay off two employees. The jobs of another 12 employees were threatened because of a union ban on the handling of the company’s freight. The company was represented by Mr A. J. Forbes. His Honour was told on Thursday by counsel for some of’ the defendants that if the application for the interim injunction was granted the union would “lose face.”

The injunction has been granted against the Canterbury and Westland Stores, Packing and Warehouse Industrial Union of Workers, the first defendant; its secretary, Paul Eggerton Piesse, second defendant; and its president. Brian Harold Sharpe, third defendant. All three were represented by Mr J. R. Milligan. It was also granted against the Northern Industrial District and Hawkes Bay Provincial Storepersons and Packers and Warehouseworkers’ Industrial Union of Workers, fourth defendant; and its secretary. Michael Jackson, fifth defendant, both of whom were represented by Mr G. J. Venning.

In his reserved decision Mr Justice Roper said that the application was for an interim injunction in an action in which Mid-Canterbury Industries alleged that the defendants had caused unlawful interference between the company' and certain freight forwarding companies.

It was also alleged that the defendants had conspired to injure the companies’ business and had intimidated employees of- freight forwarding companies and coerced them into withdrawing their labour to the company's detriment. In the main proceedings

the company sought restraining injunctions and an inquiry into damages. On the interim injunction the company sought orders restraining the defendants from imposing bans on it. . Mid-Canterbury Industries, Ltd, had a road transport division which traded under the name of Mid-Canterbury Transport, his Honour said. It employed 43 drivers of whom 29 were passenger bus and furniture truck drivers and 14 were goods service drivers.

As part of its operation the transport division collected and distributed cargo for Pengelly Sea-Road .Services, Ltd, an Auckland company, delivered cargo to freight forwarding companies and to their clients and for Air New Zealand and Alltrans Freight, Ltd, in Ashburton.

The Canterbury union represented those employed in the freight forwarding industry, who were engaged fulltime in the packing, unpacking, checking and dispatching of goods. Mid-Canterbury Industries transport division had no employees under the Canterbury and ■ Northern Unions freight forwarders award, and the company was not a party to the award which contained no “subsequent parties” clause. Any unpacking of containers received by the company prior to delivery of goods to clients was done by its drivers, his Honour said.

An indication of the scope of the unpacking done by the company’s drivers during June, 1982, was that it received 26 containers, of which 18 required to be unpacked before delivery. Mr M. A. de Jong, general manager, had deposed that if 18 containers had been unpacked by one man, the total time involved would have been less than six hours a week.

The Canterbury union had taken the stand that employees of Mid : Canterbury Industries who are engaged in the packing or unpacking of goods, had to be members

of that union and come under the ■ freight forwarders’ award, although it seemed clear from the evidence that there was no employee of the company engaged full-time on such work nor could there be.

There was correspondence between the Canterbury union and the company, and the upshot was that on July 6 the company was presented with an ultimatum by the Canterbury union —.employ two freight forwarding storemen to be paid under the freight forwarders’ award to handle Pengelly's work or stop doing that work. The company was given 14 days to comply. It was the company's view that it was not a freight forwarder and that any work its drivers were involved in in unpacking containers was merely incidental to their employment as drivers for which they were paid in excess of the freight forwarders’ award.

The company refused the Canterbury union’s demands with the result that employees at the freight forwarding firms in Christchurch and Ashburton, with which it had been doing business, refused to unload the company’s vehicles, and the Northern union had imposed a ban on all business between the company and Pengellys.

Members of the Northern union would not load any containers destined for MidCanterbury Industries with the result that Pengellys had made arrangements to consign containers through another firm. Because of the ban MidCanterbury had to suspend two of its employees with the possibility’of more to follow because of the reduction in work. It was effectively prevented from picking goods up or from delivering to freight forwarders’ yards in Christchurch.

By August 10 Mr de Jong had deposed that the company had lost $4OOO and goodwill. Pengellys had confirmed that if the ban was lifted it would resume normal business with Mid-Can-

terbury. The company’s stand had the support of the Christchurch Road Transport Association and the Department of Labour which apparently was instrumental in resolving in the Company’s favour two earlier disputes of the same nature between it and the Canterbury union'. It appeared also’that the Canterbury union’s demands might run counter to an earlier decision of the Arbitration Court on March 26. 1981, said his Honour.

It was held by his Honour that there was enough evidence to infer intimidation and that at this stage in the proceedings there was clearly a serious question to be tried on the issue of unlawful interference. Dealing with the question of balance of convenience Mr Justice Roper said that the governing factor was adequacy of damages as compensation. “Despite Mr Venning's submissions I am in complete agreement with Mr Forbes that in this case the balance is all one way. The company is losing money and will continue to do so while the ban continues.” said his Honour. “Its employees, and perhaps its whole transport business, are at risk and it is not a case where it would be easy to assess its loss with precision if it was left to its remedy in damages." A loss of goodwill, for was not readily measurable. As for the defendants it was difficult to see how any one of them could suffer damage if the interim injunction was granted. Mr Venning had suggested that there could be some loss of face by the union and restriction on the pressure unions could bring to bear on employers, but those did not impress him as heads of damage. “My conclusion is that it would be difficult to envisage a case more deserving of interim relief and there will be orders as sought. Costs will be reserved,” his Honour concluded.