Transport and General Workers Union v Associated British Ports Ltd

For the purposes of statutory trade-dispute immunity, a self-employed person may be a “worker” under a contract to perform services personally, even where the person also contracts with another organisation and serves the ultimate customer under a separate relationship.

Statutory duties and powers do not prevent a harbour authority from entering contractual relations with authorised pilots. The existence and character of the contract depend on the authorisation documents, their terms and the parties’ conduct. A cumulative obligation to accept supervision, comply with directions, undertake duties personally and remain subject to disciplinary control may satisfy the statutory definition. A dispute concerning working conditions or termination of authorisation may therefore be a trade dispute.

Associated British Ports Ltd obtained an interim injunction restraining the Transport and General Workers Union from inducing authorised Humber pilots to strike or breach contractual arrangements involving Humber Pilots Ltd. Hunt J rejected the Union’s contention that the pilots were “workers” for the purposes of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The Union appealed. The central issue was whether the individual self-employed pilots had contracts with ABP under which they undertook personally to perform work or services, so that the dispute was a “trade dispute” attracting statutory immunity.

1. Appeal allowed. The interim injunction was discharged. The Union was entitled to immunity under section 219 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
2. The statutory framework governing pilotage did not determine the contractual question. Statutory duties and powers may coexist with contractual rights and obligations. Section 4(1) of the Pilotage Act 1987 expressly contemplated arrangements for authorised pilots under either contracts of employment or contracts for services.
3. The authorisation documents used contractual language. They referred to an offer of authorisation, acceptance and agreement to specified terms. A pilot could not operate in the Humber area without accepting those terms. A contract therefore arose between each pilot and ABP.
4. The cumulative terms required personal performance of services for ABP. They included supervision by the Pilotage Operations Manager, compliance with reasonable and lawful instructions, participation in a rota, attendance and reporting obligations, restrictions on absence and conduct, and disciplinary sanctions including suspension or revocation of authorisation. The fact that the pilots also contracted with Humber Pilots Ltd, or were servants of shipowners while piloting vessels, did not prevent a contract within section 296(1)(b).
5. The pilots were consequently “workers” and ABP was their employer for the extended statutory purposes. The dispute related mainly to working conditions and termination of authorisation, and therefore fell within the definition of “trade dispute” in section 244. Section 219 consequently protected the Union from the tort claims.
6. The Union’s application under section 234(2) was granted. The period during which the injunction operated was excluded from the ballot’s effective period. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused, although ABP remained free to petition that House.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from an interim injunction granted by Hunt J on 1 November 2001. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, discharged the injunction, granted the application concerning the ballot period, and refused leave to appeal.