Ardmore Studios (Ir.) Ltd v Lynch and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 October 1965
• Date: 05 October 1965
• Docket Number: (1964. No. 1193 P.)
• Court: High Court

Ardmore Studios (Ir.) Ltd. v. Lynch and Others.

ARDMORE STUDIOS (IRELAND) LIMITED

Plaintiffs

and

GEORGE LYNCH, ANTHONY KELLY, DERMOT MOLONEY, LEO MURPHY and PETER KINGSLEY

Defendants.

(1964. No. 1193 P.)

Trade dispute - Alleged breach of an agreement between company by and trade union concerning employment of members of union - Whether bona fidebelief by union and members in existence of such agreement - Unlawful picketing - Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edw., 7, c. 47), s. 2.

Principal and agent - Company - Receiver/Manager appointed by debenture holder - Whether bound by agreement concerning employment of workers alleged to have existed between company and trade union prior to appointment of receiver - Whether receiver agent of company - Companies Act, 1963 (No. 33 of 1963), s. 316, sub-s. 2.

The plaintiff Company carried on the business of managing film production studios. The Company maintained a small permanent staff, and employed other staff, including electricians, on a non-permanent basis as required. On the 1st January, 1959, an agreement was completed between the Company and the Trade Union Studio Committee, consisting of representatives of various unions whose members were employed at the studios. Eventually a list of names was compiled on which were placed the names of certain electricians who would be available for work when called upon by the Company. All the persons whose names were on the list were, at all times relevant to the proceedings, members of the Electrical Trades Union (Ireland). The list was known as the "seniority list." The agreement of January, 1959, was terminated in the year 1962, but notwithstanding this fact the Company continued to employ, and the Union provided, electricians in accordance with the existing practice and from the seniority list. A dispute arose between the Company and the electricians named on the seniority list and their union, and a picket was placed on the studio premises owned by the Company. In proceedings instituted by the Company as plaintiffs against the secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (Ireland) and certain members of the Union and in which the Company sought an injunction to restrain the picketing of the premises, it had been held by Budd J. that the defendants at the date of the picketing had a bona fide belief that there was a binding agreement in existence whereby the Company was bound to recruit from the seniority list such electricians as the Company might require for a film production, that the dispute existing at the date of the picketing was a trade dispute within the moaning of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906; and that the actions of the defendants were protected by the provisions of that Act. Subsequent to those proceedings, the business at the studios virtually closed down, and subsequently, on the 1st October, 1963, the Industrial Credit Company, as holders of a debenture on the assets of the Company, which was security for advances made to the Company, appointed a receiver/manager who entered into possession of the studios and took over the management of the Company. At a later date the receiver/manager agreed to let the studios and their equipment to an English producer for production of a film, and entered into an agreement with a group of unions for the supply of labour necessary for production of the film. The Electrical Trades Union (Ireland) was not a party to this agreement, and labour was not recruited from its members or from the seniority list which had existed. The Electrical Trades Union (Ireland) and some members whose names were on the seniority list alleged that an agreement existed between the Electrical Trades Union (Ireland) and the Company by which the Company was bound to recruit electricians from the seniority list. The receiver/manager refused to recruit electricians from the seniority list. A picket having been placed on the studios, the Company instituted the present proceedings, seeking an injunction to restrain the placing of a picket on the studios and the picketing thereof. On the hearing of the proceedings it was

Held by McLoughlin J. 1, that at the date of the picketing, the subject-matter of the proceedings, the alleged agreement between the Company and the Union to recruit electricians from the seniority list had ceased to operate;

2, That the agreement between the Company and the Union as to recruitment of electricians from the seniority list, even if in existence at the date of the appointment of the receiver/manager, was not binding upon the receiver/meager: In re B. Joheson & Co. (Builders) Ltd., [1955] 1 Ch. 634and Robbie & Co. v. Witney Warehouse Co., [1963] 3 All E. R. 613 considered;

3, That there was no basis upon which the Union could have bona fide believed in the existence of any binding agreement between the receiver/manager and the Union as to the recruitment of electricians from the seniority list at the date of picketing.

4, That the plaintiff Company was entitled to the relief sought.

Witness Action.

The plaintiff Company, Ardmore Studios (Ireland) Ltd., instituted proceedings by plenary summons against the defendant, George Lynch, as general secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (Ireland), and against the defendants, Anthony Kelly, Dermot Moloney, Leo Murphy and Peter Kingsley, as members of the Union, seeking 1, a declaration that no trade dispute existed in furtherance of which it might be lawful for the defendants or any of them to watch, beset or picket the plaintiff Company's premises at Ardmore, Bray, County Wicklow; 2, an injunction to restrain the defendants and each of them and their servants and agents from watching, besetting and picketing the said premises; and 3, further and other relief. The facts of the case have been summarised in the head-note and appear fully in the judgment of McLoughlin J., post. The arguments and submissions appear from the said judgment.

Cur. adv. vult.

McLoughlin J. :—

The plaintiff Company is a private limited liability company incorporated in Ireland and having its registered office in Dublin. As its name implies, it has a film studio premises in Ardmore, Bray, in the County of Wicklow, where it carries on the business of managing such studio and providing scenery, staging and other equipment for the production of films at the studio. It maintains at all times a small permanent staff at the studio; it does not itself carry on the production of films, but it lets the studios and equipment for the production of films by production companies, and for this purpose it also employs and provides the services of whatsoever staff, carpenters, electricians and other workers may be required for the productions. The defendants are electricians, members of a trade union which is called the Electrical Trades Union (Ireland), having its offices in Dublin, the first-named defendant being the general secretary of the Union.

On the 9th June of this year the defendants, other than the first-named defendant, George Lynch, attended outside the gates of the plaintiff Company's premises at Ardmore and picketed the premises by parades outside, carrying placards designed to suggest to the other employees of the Company and to the public that the Union and its members were in dispute with the Company. The defendants admit that the premises were so picketed but they say that it was done in furtherance of a trade dispute and that they were entitled so to do and in so doing were protected by the provisions of s. 2 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. The summons in this action was issued on the 18th June last and it claimed a declaration that no trade dispute exists in a furtherance of which it might be lawful for the defendants to picket the premises and claiming also an injunction to restrain the defendants and each of them from so picketing. On the same date an order was made by Mr. Justice Teevan, granting an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from picketing the premises until after the 28th June and giving liberty to the plaintiffs to serve short notice of motion, seeking an interlocutory injunction, returnable for that date. When the motion came on for hearing on that date before Mr. Justice Budd it was agreed between the parties that, instead of continuing with the hearing of the motion, the pleadings in the action should be expedited and the trial of the action listed for hearing as early as possible. This was done, the pleadings were closed and the action came on for hearing before me on the 22nd July and subsequent days. Mr. Justice Budd not being then available.

This was not the first occasion that the studio was picketed by members of the Electrical Trades Union (Ireland). In February, 1963, the premises were so picketed and this fact gave rise to similar proceedings to the proceedings in this action which were heard and determined by Mr. Justice Budd in July of 1963.

Although the circumstances under which the picketing was conducted this year differ materially from the circumstances under which it was conducted in February, 1963, having regard to the way in which I base my decision I find it necessary to refer to the history of the previous action and to the facts and circumstances giving rise to it.

The studio premises were built in 1957. In 1958 the Company commenced business and rented its premises for the production of films to production companies—I think they were all British companies—and five films were produced between that date and the production of the films that gave rise to the industrial dispute that resulted in the earlier action. I do not find it easy to ascertain what in fact were the arrangements between the studio Company and the Union in the earlier part of this association. On the 1st January, 1959, there was completed an agreement between the Company, of the one part, and what was called the Trade Unions Studio Committee, of the other part. This committee was composed of representatives...