Newell v. Barker

Newell v. Barker

The respondents were entitled to inform the principal contractor of union rules and their inability to supply union labour if non‑union men were employed; that conduct did not amount to an unlawful conspiracy or inducement of breach, and the cancellation of the appellant’s subcontract was attributable to the contractor’s election in the face of competing labour interests rather than any unlawful act by the respondents.

Citation
[1950] SCR 385
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: William Newell; Respondent/defendant (business Agent, Local 67): H. Barker; Respondent/defendant (official Organizer, International Union): John W. Bruce
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 1950
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Tort (alleged Conspiracy and Interference With Contractual Relations) Arising From Labour/union Activity / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.
Legal Topics
Trade Unions, Conspiracy to Injure, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Secondary Boycott, Collective Action Justification, Interference With Contractual Relations
Source Language
English
Labour Law Tort Contract Law Trade Unions Conspiracy to Injure Inducement of Breach of Contract Secondary Boycott Collective Action Justification +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Newell

Appellant/plaintiff

H. Barker

Respondent/defendant (business Agent, Local 67)

John W. Bruce

Respondent/defendant (official Organizer, International Union)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Tort (alleged Conspiracy and Interference With Contractual Relations) Arising From Labour/union Activity / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether union officials unlawfully interfered with the appellant’s contractual relations
  2. 2 Whether the respondents conspired maliciously to injure appellant’s business
  3. 3 Whether refusal or threat to refuse union labour and communicating that to contractors is an unlawful inducement of breach

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were entitled to inform the principal contractor of union rules and their inability to supply union labour if non‑union men were employed; that conduct did not amount to an unlawful conspiracy or inducement of breach, and the cancellation of the appellant’s subcontract was attributable to the contractor’s election in the face of competing labour interests rather than any unlawful act by the respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario ([1949] O.R. 85; [1949] 1 D.L.R. 544) affirmed