Cooper v Millea and Others (No 1)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 11 October 1938 |
| Date | 11 October 1938 |
| Court | High Court |
Dismissal caused by threat to strike by other employees - Rival trade unions - Employees who were members of one trade union refusing to work with employee who was a member of another trade union - Threatened strike a breach of contract between railway company and their employees - Threat to Strike not authorised by trade union -Interference with employment by illegal means -Right of action by dismissed employee against trade union officials for damages - Trade Dispute Act 1906 (6 Ed. 7, c. 47), s. 3 - Railways Act,1924 (No. 29 of 1924), s. 55.
Defendants, who were officials of the local branch of the National Union of Railwaymen (known as the "N.U.R."), were employed with other men by the Great Southern Railways Co. at the town of W.They called on the local superintendent of the Company as a deputation authorised by that branch to threaten an immediate strike if theplaintiff, who was also an employee of the Company, was allowed to work at W. They had in fact, no authority to threaten an immediate strike, and a strike would have been a breach of their contracts with the Company. Plaintiff, who was formerly a member of the N.U.R,., had left it and joined another trade union, and refused to rejoin the N.U.R. As a result of the threat to strike the Company offered the plaintiff work at another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riordan v Butler and Others
...was entitled to claim damages. Held further that there was a "trade dispute" but this did not affect the result. Cooper v. Millea, [1938] I. R. 749, followed; White v. Riley[1921] 1 Ch. 1,distinguished. O'Byrne J. :— At the outset of my judgment I think it well that I should refer to the pa......
-
Deighan v Same Defendants
...procedure prescribed by the above Scheme should be followed. The plaintiffs, accordingly, were entitled to succeed. Cooper v. MilleaIR, [1938] I. R. 749, applied. (Maguire P.), McLoughlin and Great Southern Railways Co. and Deighan and Same Defendants - Employees of railway company - Agreem......
-
Taylor v Smyth
...UNREP HIGH 10.3.1972 ROOKES V BARNARD 1964 1 AER 367 CENTRAL CANADA POTASH CO LTD V GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN 88 DLR 609 COOPER V MILLEA 1938 IR 749 RIORDAN V BUTLER 1940 IR 347 WARD V LEWIS & ORS 1955 1 AER 55 O'MAHONY V GAFFNEY 1986 IR 36 GREEN V ROZEN & ORS 1955 2 AER 797 LONRHO LTD ......
-
H.A. O'Neil Ltd v Unite the Union and Others
...[1901] A.C. 495 are to be understood; what was decided in Lyons v. Wilkins [1899] 1 Ch. 255; what was determined in Cooper v. Millea [1938] I.R. 749; what arguments can be mounted by reference to the decision in Becton, Dickinson and Company Limited, and that none of these issues have been......