proved nothing against Miss Winter and did not
justify her dismissal. As the representatives of
the Drug Store persisted in their refusal to
reinstate Miss Winter, the Chairman inquired
whether they would be prepared to consider
settling the matter on a basis other than reinstate-
ment, to which they replied in the negative.

The voluntary negotiations having broken
down, the Union approached Government for the
appointment of a Board of Inquiry under the
Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Inquiry) Act,
1939, section 8 (1) of which reads thus:

“8 (1) Where any trade dispute exists
or is apprehended the Governor may, whether
or not the dispute is reported to him under
this Act, inquire into the causes and circum-
stances of the dispute, and, if he thinks fit,
refer any matter appearing to him to be
connected with or relevant to the dispute to
a Board of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to
as the Board) appointed by him for the
purpose of such reference, and the Board
shall inquire into the matters referred to it
and report thereon to the Governor. ”

By instrument dated 16th August, 1955, the
then Acting Governor of the Leeward Islands
appointed a Board of Inquiry “to inquire into the
causes of the dispute that arose over the dismissal
of Miss Averyl Winter by the proprietors of
O’Neals’ Drug Store, St. John’s, and to report there-
on to the Governor and to submit to him such con-
clusions, recommendations and observations as the
Board sees fit.”

At the Inquiry, which was held on 24th
August, Mr. E. E. Harney, representing the
plaintiffs, submitted in limine that there was no
trade dispute between Miss Winter and the Drug
Store and that the appointment of the Board was,
consequently, invalid. The gist of his contention
was that the relationship of employer and employee
had been legally terminated by the giving of a week’s
wages to Miss Winter in lien of notice, and that
there could therefore be no trade dispute within the
meaning of the Act under which the Board was
operating. The Board ruled that “the terms of
reference contained in the instrument dated 16th
August 1955 which gave the Board its validity
showed prima facie that there was a trade dispute
existing between the proprietors of O’Neals Drug
Store and Miss Averyl Winter and therefore the
Board had full power and authority to inquire into
the dispute.” At this stage Mr. Harney sought
and was granted permission to withdraw from the
Inquiry, and the plaintiffs took no further part in
the proceedings, but the minutes of the meetings at
the Labour Department, which contained inter alia
the reasons given by Miss O'Neal for the dismissal
of Miss Winter, were produced in evidence and
closely examined.

In its report submitted to the Acting, Governor
on 31st August, 1955, the Board, after setting out
its findings, expressed the opinion that there was no
moral justification for the dismissal of Miss Winter

2

and, using “ asa norm one of the accepted principles
of good industrial relations, that is the principle of
mutual respect and tolerance of human rights
between employer and workman”’, recommended
that the proprietors of the Drug Store be asked to
pay her a sum equivalent to thirteen weeks’ wages
“as a compensation for her dismissal.”

Under cover of a letter from the Administrator
of Antigua dated 6th September, 1955, a copy
of the Report was sent to Mr. Harney for the
information of his clients and himself “and such
action with the view to a settlement of the dispute
as may be deemed advisable.” In the letter the
Administrator also informed Mr. Harney and his
clients that the Acting Governor agreed generally
with the recommendations of the Board. The
plaintiffs ignored this communication, and on 16th
September the Administrator caused the Report to
be published in the local press. The following day
the plaintiffs’ business premises were picketed. The
pickets are still there

This would, I think, be a convenient stage to
set out paragraphs 5 to 10 (the most important
paragraphs) of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim
dated 21st October, 1955:—

“5. The first seven named and the last
named defendants and each of them wrongfully
and maliciously conspired and combined
amongst themselves (with intent to injure the
plaintiffs and thereby compel them to submit
to the demand of the Antigua Trades and
Labour Union to pay compensation to one
Avery] Winter a former clerk in O’Neal’s Drug
Store who had recently been lawfully dismissed
from her employment by the plaintiffs) wrong-
fully and without legal authority to watch and
beset or cause or procure to be watched and
beset the said business places of the plaintiffs
and the approaches and entrances thereto in
such manner as was calculated to intimidate
customers and prospective purchasers.

6. In furtherance and execution of their
said conspiracy and combination the said first
seven named and the last named defendants
and each of them wrongfully and without legal
authority caused or procured the defendant
Joseph Samuel and other persons to the num-
ber of 12 or thereabouts (hereinafter referred
to as the pickets) wrongfully and without legal
authority to watch and beset the said business
places of the plaintiffs daily from the 17th day
of September, 1955, in such a manner as is
calculated to intimidate customers and prospec-
tive purchasers and to obstruct the approaches
thereto. The first seven named and the last.
named defendants and each of them in acting
as in this paragraph stated acted for the pur-
pose of intimidating and preventing customers
and prospective purchasers from entering the
said business places and purchasing therein.

7. The first seven named and the last
named defendants on several occasions on the
17th day of September, 1955, and on divers