| Roebuck v NUM (Yorkshire Area) No 2 | |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court |
| Citation | ICR 676 |
| Keywords | |
| Trade union, collective bargaining | |
Roebuck v NUM (Yorkshire Area) No 2 ICR 676 is a UK labour law case, concerning trade union regulation.
Facts
Union members gave evidence for the Sheffield Star in a libel action by Mr Arthur Scargill. They were disciplined by their union under its rules, prompted by Mr Scargill who chaired the disciplinary panel. They were found in breach and disqualified from office for two years.
Judgment
Templeman J held that the disciplinaries were unlawful. He noted that "all members of a domestic tribunal where the interests of their own organisation are at stake, have a general inclination to defend the union and its officers against attack from any source." Scargill's role as chairman "undoubtedly gave the impression that the dice were loaded against... the appearance of bias was inevitable." The question is "whether a reasonable man with no inside knowledge might well think that it might be biased." Here it was obvious.
See also
| Sources on trade unions | |
|---|---|
| European Convention on Human Rights art 11 | |
| ILO Freedom of Association Convention (1948) C87 | |
| ASLEF v United Kingdom ECHR 184 | |
| Lee v Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain 2 QB 359 | |
| Edwards v Halliwell 2 All ER 1064 | |
| Hodgson v NALGO 1 WLR 130 | |
| TULRCA 1992 ss 46-61 | |
| Ecclestone v National Union of Journalists IRLR 166 | |
| Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union 2 QB 175 | |
| AB v CD IRLR 808 | |
| TULRCA 1992 ss 71-96 | |
| Paul v NALGO IRLR 413 | |
| Roebuck v NUM (Yorkshire Area) No 2 ICR 676 | |
| Esterman v NALGO ICR 625 | |
| Cheall v APEX 2 AC 180 | |
| TULRCA 1992 ss 62-65 | |
| see UK labour and trade unions |
Notes
- Hannam v Bradford Corporation 1 WLR 937, 979