Gate Gourmet London Ltd. v Transport and General Workers Union & Ors

An interim injunction may restrain unlawful conduct connected with picketing, while preserving peaceful assembly and communication. The court must distinguish lawful persuasion and noisy protest from threats, abuse, obstruction, harassment and interference with employees or vehicles. A trade union may incur provisional liability under Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 20, where officials or an organising group have authorised or endorsed unlawful acts. The court should tailor relief to the evidence. Numerical limits are not justified merely because a picket is large, but may be imposed where unlawful conduct is sufficiently linked to a particular location. Persons unknown may be restrained where the prohibited group is defined with sufficient certainty.

Gate Gourmet sought an emergency interlocutory injunction against the Transport and General Workers Union, named individuals and persons unknown during an industrial dispute following dismissals and picketing at its Heathrow premises. The evidence described peaceful chanting and assembly, but also threats, abuse, obstruction, intimidation, interference with vehicles and conduct directed at employees travelling to and from work.

The application sought limits on picket numbers, restrictions on movement and communication, and orders requiring the union to ensure compliance. The central issues were whether there was a good arguable case of union liability, whether relief was compatible with peaceful picketing and Convention rights, how far the injunction should extend, and whether persons unknown could properly be included.

1. Interim relief granted. The court granted an interlocutory injunction, but not wholly in the terms sought. The application was assessed urgently and principally on the claimant’s evidence. The issues remained provisional and had not been tested at trial.
2. Union liability. Section 20 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 potentially made the union liable for acts authorised or endorsed by officials or by a group organising or co-ordinating industrial action, even if acting without authority or contrary to the union’s rules. The mere presence of a union member at a picket, without more, was not decided to establish liability and the judge expressed substantial doubt about that submission. There was nevertheless a good arguable case that officials knew of, authorised or endorsed recurring unlawful conduct. The union had not repudiated it in accordance with section 21.
3. Peaceful picketing and Convention rights. Sections 219 and 220 protected attendance for peaceful communication and persuasion, but did not protect threats, assaults, harassment, offensive conduct or obstruction. Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention were engaged and the court balanced those rights against the prevention of crime and protection of employees.
4. Tailored restrictions. The evidence did not show that unlawful conduct was caused simply by the number of pickets at site B. A numerical limit there was premature. The injunction instead prohibited unlawful conduct and, so far as possible, confined pickets at site B to that area, preventing approaches to employees travelling to or from work except when coming or going. The number at site A was limited to six, and picketing near specified bus stops was prohibited.
5. Defendants. The order was refused against individuals where the evidence showed only chanting, an insufficiently particularised gesture or language, or an approach to speak without obstruction, threat or serious abuse. It was granted against individuals where threats, serious particularised insults, obstruction or attempts to prevent employees moving on were evidenced. Persons unknown were sufficiently identifiable by reference to unlawful picketing and specified abusive or threatening conduct, so they could be restrained.