''R v Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge'' (1721) 88 ER 9 is a
labour law
Labour laws (also known as labor laws or employment laws) are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, ...
case, concerning the historical attitude of the
common law to trade unions. It held that strike action amounted to an unlawful and criminal conspiracy. This attitude prevailed through the 19th century, until trade unions were made lawful by Parliament in the
Trade Union Act 1871
The Trade Union Act 1871 (34 & 35 Vicc 31 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which legalised trade unions for the first time in the United Kingdom. This was one of the founding pieces of legislation in UK labour law, though it has ...
and the
Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875. The
Trade Disputes Act 1906 confirmed unions' legality at common law once more, and now the position is reflected in
international law, particularly the
ILO Convention No 87
The Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (1948No 87is an International Labour Organization Convention, and one of eight conventions that form the core of international labour law, as interpreted by the Declar ...
and 98.
Facts
A group of workers had founded the London Journeymen Tailors’ Union and held a strike the following year. In response, the Journeymen Tailors, London Act 1720 was passed. A case was brought that the union constituted an unlawful conspiracy.
Judgment
The court heard that the agreement would be contrary to the
Journeymen Tailors, London Act 1720
A journeyman, journeywoman, or journeyperson is a worker, skilled in a given building trade or craft, who has successfully completed an official apprenticeship qualification. Journeymen are considered competent and authorized to work in that fie ...
. It found, however, that it was unnecessary to rely on the Act, because the union's actions were unlawful at common law.
However, it was not for refusing to work that the defendants were indicted, but "for conspiring." As the judgment of 6 November 1721 stated:
It is true, the indictment sets forth, that the defendants refused to work under such rates, which were more than enjoined by the statute, for that is only two shillings a day; but yet these words will not bring the offence, for which the defendants are indicted, to be within the statute, because it is not the denial to work except for more wages than is allowed by the statute, but it is for a conspiracy to raise their wages for which these defendants are indicted...This indictment need not conclude ''contra formam statuti'', because it is for a conspiracy, which is an offence at common law."
See also
*
UK labour law
*
US labor law
*
UK labour law history
The History of labour law in the United Kingdom concerns the development of UK labour law, from its roots in Roman and medieval times in the British Isles up to the present. Before the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of mechanised manufa ...
*
US labor history
The labor history of the United States describes the history of organized labor, US labor law, and more general history of Working class in the United States, working people, in the United States. Beginning in the 1930s, unions became important ...
Notes
{{reflist, 2
References
*
United Kingdom labour case law
1721 in British law
1721 in England
History of the textile industry in the United Kingdom