Doran v Lennon and O'Kelly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1945
• Date: 01 January 1945
• Court: High Court

Doran v. Lennon and O'Kelly.

JAMES J. DORAN and MARY TERESA DORAN,trading as the Dublin Shoe Co.

Plaintiffs

and

CHARLES LENNON and IMELDA O'KELLY

Defendants.

Trade Union - Trade dispute - Dispute between employers and Union in relation to bonuses for employees in retail drapery trade - Employees in shoe shop belonging to same Union and joining in strike - Refusal by proprietors of shop to re-instate after termination of strike - Demand for re-instatement made several months later - Picketing of premises - Whether illegal - Application for injunction - Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Ed. 7, c. 47).

Witness Action.

The plaintiffs, James J. Doran and Mary Teresa Doran, brought an action claiming an injunction to restrain the defendants, Charles Lennon and Imelda O'Kelly, from attending at, or near, the plaintiffs' premises known as "The Dublin Shoe Company" situate at 36 O'Connell Street, in the City and County of Limerick, for the purpose of watching, or besetting, or picketing the said premises and from disturbing the plaintiffs in the conduct of the business carried on by them in the said premises, and from interfering, or attempting to interfere with, the plaintiffs, their employees or customers, or any of them, in any way which would be, or tend to be, a nuisance or annoyance to them or any of them.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, were proprietors of three businesses in Limerick, viz., "Dublin House" and "Gowns,"which were a retail drapery business, and a third, "Dublin Shoe Co," which dealt mainly in footwear. The defendants were employees of the plaintiffs in the last-mentioned business and were members of the Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks (Limerick Branch).

The material facts as set out in paragraphs 2 to 10 of the statement of claim were as follows:—

"2. Each of the defendants had been employed by the plaintiffs in the plaintiffs' retail boot and shoe business at 36 O'Connell Street, in the City of Limerick, for some years immediately prior to the 22nd day of November, 1943. On the said 22nd day of November, 1943, each of the defendants left of his and her own volition the employment of the plaintiffs, whereupon the said employment of each of the defendants terminated.

3. The defendants on the 23rd day of May, 1944, and thereafter daily (Sundays excepted) until they were restrained by order, hereinafter mentioned, of this Honourable Court attended on the public highway at, and near, 36 O'Connell Street aforesaid and watched, beset, and picketed the said premises, parading on foot forward and backward in front thereon, exhibiting on the said 23rd day of May, 1944, and the next following two or three days a placard displaying the following words, namely:—(in small letters) "Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks" and (in large letters) "Strike on here; Staff locked out" and thereafter a placard altered to read as follows:—"Trade Dispute on here; Staff locked out."

"4. By order of this Honourable Court made on the 30th day of August, 1944, it was ordered that the defendants and each of them, and their and each of their servants and agents be restrained until the 11th day of October, 1944, or until further order from attending at or near, the plaintiffs' premises known as "The Dublin Shoe Company,"situate at 36 O'Connell Street in the City and County of Limerick, for the purpose of watching or besetting or picketing the said premises and from disturbing the plaintiffs in the conduct of the business carried on by them in the said premises, and from interfering, or attempting to interfere, with the plaintiffs, their employees, or customers, or any of them in any way which would be, or tend to be, a nuisance or annoyance to them, or any of them, and it was ordered that, in the event of the plaintiffs delivering their statement of claim herein on or before the said 11th day of October, 1944, the injunction hereinbefore granted be continued until judgment in this action or until further order."

"5. No strike and no trade dispute as defined by the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, or at all in anywise relating to, or involving, the plaintiffs or either of them, the defendants, or either of them, or the said business now exists, or at any material time has existed, and the plaintiffs or either of them have not now, or at any material time, locked out the staff employed by them or any member of the said staff.

6. The words displayed on the placards referred to in paragraph 3 hereof mean, and were meant to mean, and were understood by persons reading them to mean, that a strike existed at the premises of the said business; that the staff of the said business was locked out by the proprietors thereof, and that a trade dispute existed relating to or involving the plaintiffs, or either of them, the defendants, or either of them, or the employees of the said business, or some one or more of them of the said business. The said words displayed on the said placards were false and untrue to the knowledge of the defendants and each of them.

7. The actions and activities of the defendants and each of them, set forth in paragraph 3 hereof, were carried on and engaged in pursuant to a conspiracy between the defendants to injure the plaintiffs in the said business with the intention of thereby coercing the plaintiffs to take back the defendants into the plaintiffs' employment.

8. By reason of the action and activities of the defendants and each of them, set forth in paragraph 3 hereof, the defendants and each of them caused or occasioned a nuisance to the plaintiffs, their employees and the customers and potential customers of the said business.

9. By reason of the action and activities of the defendants and each of them, set forth in paragraph 3 hereof, the plaintiffs' conduct of the said business has been disturbed, customers and potential customers of the said business have been deterred from making purchases therefrom, and the said business and the goodwill thereof has been much injured, in consequence whereof the plaintiffs have suffered much loss.

10. The defendants and each of them intend unless restrained by order of this Honourable Court, again to carry on and engage in the actions and activities set forth in paragraph 3 hereof.

The plaintiffs claim:—

1. An injunction restraining the defendants and each of them and their and each of their servants and agents from attending...