‘“Was there any trade dispute between
Mr. Schoenthal’s workmen and himself?
None at all What the Union did
was not done in furtherance of a trade
dispute between Schoenthal and his men;
but what they did was to call out
Mr. Schoenthal’s men in order to prevent
him from working for Messrs Lyons, and
thus to compel Mr. Schoenthal who was
willing to work for Messrs. Lyons not to
work for him, and by this means to
injure Messrs. Lyons in their trade if
they did not obey the edicts of the
Union.”

In Quinn v. Leathem (supra) the respondent,
a flesher, carried on business in Lisburn, having as
one of his constant customers Andrew Munse, who
kept a butcher’s shop at Belfast; and the respond-
ent had in his employ assistants who were not
members of the trade union of which the appellant
was treasurer. The members of the union amongst
themselves adopted an unregistered rule that they
would not work with non-union men nor would
they cut up meat that came froma place where
non-union hands were employed. After unsuccess-
fully attempting to compel the respondent to
employ none but union men, they compelled
Munse to stop taking meat from the respondent
under threat of calling out Munse’s men (who
were members of the union) if Munse did not cease
dealing with the respondent. Held: the words
“trade dispute between employers and workmen”
in section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of
Property Act, 1875, did not include a dispute on
trade union matters between workmen who were
members of a trade union and an employer of
non-union workmen who refused to employ
meinbers of a trade union.

The facts and decision in Doran v. Lennon
(supra) are summarised at pp. 476 and 477 of
Citrine’s Trade Union Law as tollows:—

“In Doran v. Lennon the plaintiffs were
the owners of retail drapery shops and of
2 boot shop. Asa result of their refusal
to pay statutory bonuses which the union
claimed were payable to the drapery and
boot employees, the union called a strike,
giving inadequate notice and thus causing
a breach of contract by the employees.
The strike was settled after five days,
but the terms of settlement did not cover
the defendants, who were boot employees
and to whom the plaintiffs maintained
that the bonus Order did not apply.
When the defendants presented them-
selves for work the plaintiffs refused to
reinstate them, on the ground that their
employment had been terminated by the
breach. Four months later the union,
conceding that the bonus Order did not
apply to the defendants, demanded their
reinstatement. This was refused, but
was repeated two months later. The
request was again refused and the

5

defendants proceeded to picket the plain-
tiffs’ premises. In an action by the
plaintiffs for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from ‘ watching or besetting’,
Overend, J. held that there was no trade
dispute and that the protection of the
1906 Act (sic) did not apply. He said:

‘If it were otherwise, then every
employee of a commercial firm, who
broke his contract and was dismissed for
cause, would be entitled to picket his
late master’s premises and yet claim the
protection of the statute’.”

We now come to Ex Parte Crowther and
Co. Ltd. (supra) in which workmen employed by a
company of chemical manufacturers through their
trade union had for some time been pressing for
changes in wages and conditions of service; the
company always resisted these demands; then on
26th March, 1947, the company were told by their
suppliers that their supplies of salt would be cut by
50%; on 28th March notice was given by the
company to all workmen employed on the manu-
facturing side of their business terminating their
employment as from 4th April. No question arose
as to this being in any way a notice otherwise than
in accordance with the contracts of service and the
men were discharged from the company’s service
on 4th April. The matter was then reported to
the Minister of Labour and he referred it to the
National Arbitration Tribunal under the Conditions
of Employment and National Arbitration Order,
1940, and they made an award. The company
then moved for « certiorari to remove the award
into the King’s Bench Division for the purpose of

having it quashed. Lord Goddard, C.J., said:—

“Tt was submitted by counsel for the
company that as at the date of the reference
due notice had been given to the workmen
to terminate their employment and their
employment had thereby been terminated,
there could be no trade dispute to refer,
because there could not be a dispute or
difference on any subject between these
employers and workmen as the workmen were
not in the service of the employers, and he
reinforced this argument by reference to the
definition of “ workman” which he submitted
contemplated an existing contract of service
so, as he put it, that there must be some
contract on which the reference could “ bite.”
I cannot agree with that submission. If
effect were given to it, it would mean that
any employer, or, indeed, any workman,
could nullify the whole provisions of the
Order and the object of the regulation under
which it was made by terminating the
contract of service before a reference was
ordered, or even after the matter was referred
but before the trubunal considered it, It is,
in my opinion, quite clear that there was
here a trade dispute existing at any rate
down to the date of the dismissal of the
workmen. That is not in issue, and whether