National Dock Labour Board v John Bland & Co Ltd

Goods unloaded from a ship remain cargo only while their subsequent handling can fairly be regarded as ancillary to, and broadly part of, their carriage by sea. Goods cease to be cargo once their treatment and the elapsed time break that connection.

A dock labour scheme applying to a defined port does not extend to premises merely because they are in the port’s vicinity. Where the scheme defines dock work as operations at places or premises to which it relates, work outside its exhaustively defined area falls outside the scheme. Language referring to workers in the vicinity does not enlarge that territorial definition.

Timber imported by sea was unloaded and stored within the Cardiff dock estates by registered dock workers. It was later carried by lorry to timber merchants’ yards, some within and some outside the dock estates, and stacked there. John Bland & Co Ltd’s yard was outside, but in the vicinity of, the dock estates.

An industrial tribunal held that the yard work was not dock work. The Divisional Court decided the cargo issue for the National Dock Labour Board but the territorial issue for the merchants. In the Court of Appeal, Fenton Atkinson and Megaw LJJ decided both issues for the merchants; the Master of the Rolls dissented.

The House considered whether the timber remained cargo when delivered to and stacked at the merchants’ yards, and whether the applicable dock labour scheme extended beyond the dock estates to their vicinity.

1. The House unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs. Lord Cross of Chelsea gave detailed reasons which Lord Diplock expressly adopted. Lord Donovan adopted the reasoning of the Court of Appeal majority. Viscount Dilhorne reached the same conclusions in a separate speech, and Lord Pearson concurred.

2. Per Lord Cross of Chelsea, the definition of cargo in section 6 of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946 did not make everything once carried in a ship cargo indefinitely. Goods may remain cargo after unloading, but only while what has subsequently been done with them can fairly be regarded as ancillary to, and broadly part of, their carriage by sea. The precise point at which the timber ceased to be cargo during storage within the docks did not require determination. It was no longer cargo when it reached the timber merchant’s yard and was unloaded and stacked there.

3. Per Lord Cross of Chelsea, the description of Cardiff and Penarth as “the whole of the Dock Estates” was an exhaustive territorial definition imported into the 1967 Scheme. Viscount Dilhorne reached the same conclusion, applying the contextual approach to “include” stated in Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps 1899 AC 99.

4. Per Lord Cross of Chelsea, the statutory definition of dock worker authorised a scheme to cover appropriate work in a port’s vicinity, but the 1967 Scheme did not exercise that power here. Its proviso to clause 1(3) was limiting rather than extending. Most importantly, clause 2 defined dock work as operations at places or premises to which the Scheme related. For Cardiff, those places were confined to the dock estates.

5. Per Lord Cross of Chelsea, clause 10’s criminal consequences reinforced that construction. An employer should, so far as possible, be able to determine before engaging labour whether the proposed work is dock work. An uncertain boundary based only on whether premises were in the port’s vicinity would frustrate that objective.

6. Accordingly, stacking the timber at the respondents’ yards was outside the statutory and scheme definitions. The respondents did not require licences or registration for the workers concerned.

1. House of Lords: The National Dock Labour Board’s appeal was dismissed unanimously with costs.

2. Court of Appeal: By a majority, Fenton Atkinson and Megaw LJJ decided both the cargo and vicinity issues for the timber merchants. The Master of the Rolls dissented.

3. Divisional Court: The court decided the cargo issue for the Board but the vicinity issue for the merchants.

4. Industrial tribunal: The tribunal decided both issues for the merchants and held that the work was not dock work.