Trade Disputes Act 1906 - wikipedia Trade Disputes Act 1906 `` Trade Disputes Act '' redirects here. For the 1927 Act, see Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. For the 1946 Act, see Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1946. For 1965 Act, see Trade Disputes Act 1965. Trade Disputes Act 1906 Parliament of the United Kingdom Long title An Act to provide for the regulation of Trades Unions and Trade Disputes. Citation 6 Edw. 7 c. 47 Territorial extent England and Wales ; Scotland ; Northern Ireland Dates Royal assent 21 December 1906 Status : Repealed The Trade Disputes Act 1906 ( 6 Edw. 7 c. 47 ) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed under the Liberal government of Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman. The Act declared that unions could not be sued for damages incurred during a strike. Its key reform was to add the famous words, now found in the Trade Union and Labour Relations ( Consolidation ) Act 1992, section 219, to the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 that, `` An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable. '' Contents 1 Law 2 Politics 3 Passage through Parliament 4 Assessments 5 Right to strike 6 Notes 7 External links Law The immediate cause for the Act was a trio of cases in the House of Lords, which had for the first time imposed damages in tort on trade unions for going on strike. Previously, the legal status of trade unions as an `` unincorporated association '', was accepted to mean that they did not have legal standing to sue, or be sued, in court. Before the change, the two important cases were Lumley v Gye ( 1857 ) and Allen v Flood ( 1897 ). Lumley did not concern trade unions, but invented a new legal principle. An actress, Miss Wagner, had been engaged by Mr. Lumley to sing at Her Majesty 's Theatre. Mr. Gye, who ran Covent Garden Theatre, procured her to break her contract with Mr. Lumley by promising to pay her more. He was held liable to Mr. Lumley for inducing a breach of contract. This is a principle readily applicable to union situations. In the case of a strike, a union effectively persuades or decides for workers to go on strike, in breach of their contracts with employers. But in Allen, the House of Lords held that a trade union could not be sued by a non-union worker for pressuring the employer into not hiring them. They said that even though the union 's motive was malicious, the employer not hiring the non-union worker was lawful. But then, Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants ( 1901 ) surprised everyone by saying that trade unions could be held liable for damages caused by industrial action. The Lords said if unions can harm people, they are bodies capable of being sued. The Labour movement was so incensed that it met at Farringdon Town Hall and resolved to form a Labour Party to get the decision reversed in Parliament. Two further cases followed worsening the possibility to collectively bargain. Quinn v Leatham ended all possibilities of a closed shop and South Wales Miners ' Federation v Glamorgan Coal Co held that a union which induced a breach of contract had no defence of an `` honest motive '' ( for instance, wanting to improve working conditions and get fair pay for employees ). Politics The Liberal Party was returned with a large majority in the House of Commons in the general election of 1906. A minority in the new Cabinet, including Campbell - Bannerman and John Burns, wanted to introduce a Bill stating that trade unions could not be liable for damages. However the majority opinion in the Cabinet, led by H.H. Asquith and other members with legal experience, argued that this would make unions too powerful and instead proposed to limit the application of the law of agency in respect to union activities. The latter faction prevailed and a Bill was introduced on 28 March 1906 by the Solicitor General for England and Wales, William Robson. Many of the radical MPs did not understand the complicated legal wording of the Bill and so trade union MPs, led by W. Hudson, introduced their own Bill. Passage through Parliament The Private Members ' Bill was severely criticised by the Attorney General for England and Wales, John Lawson Walton, `` who tore it to pieces in his best forensic style ''. Without warning his colleagues Campbell - Bannerman spoke in favour of the trade unionists ' Bill : I have never been, and I do not profess to be now, very intimately acquainted with the technicalities of the question, or with the legal points involved in it. The great object then was, and still is, to place the two rival powers of capital and labour on an equality so that the fight between them, so far as fight is necessary, should be at least a fair one... I always vote on the second reading of a Bill with the understood reservation of details, which are to be considered afterwards. That is the universal practice. Shall I repeat that vote today ? ( Cries of `` Yes ''. ) I do not see any reason under the sun why I should not. The Conservative MP George Wyndham said he had heard Campbell - Bannerman 's peroration with blank amazement as it was incredible that he should on Friday request that MPs vote for a Bill which his Attorney - General had strongly denounced on Wednesday. Asquith and the rest of the Government opposition to the trade unionists ' Bill argued against it inside the Cabinet but the outcome of the Committee dealing with the Bill in August was to favour the trade unions ' alternative. During the Second Reading of the Trade Disputes Bill, Sir William Robson noted that the Bill was intended to prevent `` industrial conflict being the subject of litigation ''. Assessments George Dangerfield wrote in his The Strange Death of Liberal England : It gave the Unions an astounding, indeed an unlimited immunity. Labour was jubilant. The most powerful Government in history had been compelled, by scarcely more than a single show of power, to yield to the just demands of organized workers. The English constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey argued that the Act conferred upon a trade union a freedom from civil liability for the commission of even the most heinous wrong by the union or its servant, and in short confer ( red ) upon every trade union a privilege and protection not possessed by any other person or body of persons, whether corporate or incorporate... ( this Act ) makes a trade union a privileged body exempted from the ordinary law of the land. No such privileged body has ever before been deliberately created by an English Parliament. The economist Joseph Schumpeter in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy said of the Act : It is difficult, at the present time, to realize how this measure must have struck people who still believed in a state and in a legal system that centered in the institution of private property. For in relaxing the law of conspiracy in respect to peaceful picketing -- which practically amounted to legalization of trade - union action implying the threat of force -- and in exempting trade - union funds from liability in action for damages for torts -- which practically amounted to enacting that trade unions could do no wrong -- this measure in fact resigned to the trade unions part of the authority of the state and granted to them a position of privilege which the formal extension of the exemption to employers ' unions was powerless to affect. It remained in force until 1971. For the centenary of the Act, the Trades Union Congress campaigned for a Trade Union Freedom Bill. Right to strike Main article : Right to strike The Act was one of the most significant pieces of legislation for the 20th century, and was the cornerstone of the whole country 's system of collective bargaining. It was also heavily influential abroad. The right to strike is now a `` fundamental human right ''. In London Underground Ltd v NUR, Millett LJ said, `` a right which was first conferred by Parliament in 1906, which has been enjoyed by trade unions ever since and which is today recognised as encompassing a fundamental human right ''. Notes Jump up ^ John Wilson, CB. A Life of Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman ( London : Purnell Book Services Limited, 1973 ), p. 505. ^ Jump up to : Wilson, p. 505. Jump up ^ Hansard HC vol... col 1490 ( 25 April 1906 ) Jump up ^ George Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England ( Stanford University Press, 1997 ), p. 185. Jump up ^ A.V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century : Second Edition ( London : Macmillan, 1919 ), pp. xlv - xlvi. ( 1 ) Jump up ^ J.A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy ( New York : 1942 ), p. 321. Jump up ^ ( 1996 ) ICR 170, 181 External links Text of the Act United Kingdom legislation Pre-Parliamentary legislation List of English statutes Charter of Liberties Magna Carta Acts of Parliament by states preceding the Kingdom of Great Britain Parliament of England to 1483 1485 -- 1601 1603 -- 1641 Interregnum ( 1642 -- 1660 ) 1660 -- 1699 1700 -- 1706 Parliament of Scotland to 1706 Acts of Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain 1707 -- 1719 1720 -- 1739 1740 -- 1759 1760 -- 1779 1780 -- 1800 Acts of the Parliament of Ireland to 1700 1701 -- 1800 Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1801 -- 1819 1820 -- 1839 1840 -- 1859 1860 -- 1879 1880 -- 1899 1900 -- 1919 1920 -- 1939 1940 -- 1959 1960 -- 1979 1980 -- 1999 2000 to date Halsbury 's Statutes Legislation.gov.uk Short titles relating to the European Union 1972 to date Church of England measures List Church of England Assembly ( Powers ) Act 1919 Legislation of devolved institutions Acts of the Scottish Parliament List Acts and Measures of the National Assembly for Wales List Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland Orders - in - Council / Orders in Council Orders - in - Council for Northern Ireland ( 1972 - 2009 ) Orders in Council for Northern Ireland Secondary legislation United Kingdom Statutory Instruments various Scottish Statutory Instruments Acts of Sederunt Acts of Adjournal all others Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trade_Disputes_Act_1906&oldid=788495555 '' Categories : United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1906 United Kingdom labour law British trade unions history Trade union legislation 1906 in labour relations Hidden categories : Use British English Oxford spelling from June 2017 Use dmy dates from June 2017 All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from January 2011 Articles with unsourced statements from September 2013 Talk Contents About Wikipedia Add links This page was last edited on 1 July 2017, at 19 : 16. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: when was trade dispute act came into existence
Answer: 1906