Dublin Airport Authority Plc v Services Industrial Professional Technical Union
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Gilligan |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IEHC 644 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 12 March 2014 |
[2014] IEHC 644
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S14(2)(A)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S19(2)
CAMPUS OIL LTD & ORS v MIN FOR INDUSTRY & ENERGY & ORS (NO.2) 1983 IR 88
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S8
UNIVERSE TANKER SHIPS INCORPORATED OF MONROVIA v INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDERATION & ORS RESPONDENTS 1983 AC 366
NOLAN TRANSPORT (OAKLANDS) LTD v HALLIGAN 1999 1 IR 128
G & T CRAMPTON LTD v BUILDING & ALLIED TRADE UNION & ORS 1998 1 ILRM 430
MCCANN v MORRISSEY & ORS UNREP LAFFOY 26.6.2013 2013/36/10827 2013 IEHC 288
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S10
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S11
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S12
FORDE & BYRNE EMPLOYMENT LAW (3ED) PARA 1-29
KERR THE TRADE UNION & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS (3ED) 2007
SILVER TASSIE v CLEARY 1958 ILTR 27
TRADE DISPUTES ACT 1906
ARDMORE STUDIOS (IRL) LTD v LYNCH & ORS 1965 IR 1
Pension dispute - Industrial action - Injunctive relief sought - Ballot conducted - Certain employees prohibited by the terms of their contract of employment to participate in industrial action - Significant disruption and irreparable loss if strike carried out - Campus Oil Limited & Ors v. Minister for Industry and Energy & Ors (No.2) [1983] I.R. 88 principles applied - Whether serious issue to be tried - Whether damages an adequate alternative remedy - Balance of convenience
Facts The plaintiff company owns and operates Dublin and Cork Airports and has approximately 2,500 employees. The defendant union enjoys negotiating rights on behalf of the employees. Individual employees are issued with written terms and conditions upon recruitment incorporating the dispute resolution procedure as applicable to their employment. It has around 15,000 members, including active current employees of the employers, deferred pensioners and pensioners in benefits. The plaintiff argues it has met all of its obligations to pay the appropriate contributions into the scheme and it continues to meet those obligations. A substantial deficit subsequently became apparent and discussions were arranged in an attempt to resolve the issue. The plaintiff offered to pay €53.9m to address the pension issue subject to the conditions stipulated in the Labour Court recommendation. In January 2014 the union conducted a ballot for industrial action. It was said the ballot was carried out only by members of the defendant trade union who were involved in the pension scheme and that several hundred other members of the defendant union who were also employees of the plaintiff did not participate in the ballot. A 14 day notice of intention to take industrial action for a four hour period was formally served. The plaintiff announced it had put an expert panel in place in an effort to resolve the dispute without recourse to industrial action.
A matter regarding the defendant”s actions arose - in conducting the ballot it included employees who were governed by the Airport Police /Fire Service / Dublin Airport Search Unit Agreements which expressly prohibited involvement in industrial action. The plaintiff stressed that the union”s threat to engage in a four hour work stoppage would cause irreparable loss and damage to it and that the withdrawal of labour, particularly that of the police, fire service, security services and essential airfield staff, was likely to lead to the closure of both airports. It was anticipated some 10,000 passengers would be affected in Dublin and approximately 1,200 passengers in Cork and that the knock on effect would cause significant disruption for at least 24 hours. It was argued by the plaintiff if the injunctive relief sought was not granted, damages would not adequately compensate the plaintiff for its loss. In addition, the plaintiff asked how the union could expect members of the police / fire service units and the airport security unit to participate or engage in the industrial action knowing that to do so would be a breach of their express agreements.
Held In deciding whether injunctive relief should be granted the judge applied the principles laid down in Campus Oil Limited & Ors v. Minister for Industry and Energy & Ors (No.2) [1983] I.R. 88. The judge was satisfied there was a serious issue to be tried. He indicated as damages would run in the order of millions of euro, they were not an adequate alternative remedy. Having regard to the significant disruption that would be caused to passengers and airlines and to the economy if injunctive relief was not granted the judge was satisfied that the balance of convenience, in the particular circumstances, favoured that of the plaintiff.
-The judge granted the injunctive relief sought
1. These proceedings by both Dublin Airport Authority plc and Ryanair Ltd seek injunctive relief restraining the defendant pension scheme dispute in the form of a four hour work stoppage at Dublin and Cork Airport by SIPTU members of the IASS pension scheme commencing at 5.00am on Friday, 14 th March, 2014, and finishing at 9.00am on the same day.
2. Dublin Airport Authority plc seeks the following orders as set out in their notice of motion:-
"1. An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from organising any strike, work stoppage or other industrial action at the Plaintiff's premises at Dublin Airport and/or Cork Airport.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from organising, participating in, sanctioning or supporting any strike, work stoppage or other industrial action involving members of the staff of the Plaintiff and/or members of the staff of any associated or subsidiary company of the Plaintiff without first fully complying the provisions of the Industrial Relations 1990 Act and in particular Section 14 thereof.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from organising, sanctioning, supporting or participating in any strike or industrial action including any work stoppage without first conducting a full and complete secret ballot in accordance with the Defendant union rules, of the entire membership of the Defendant employed by Plaintiff, its subsidiaries and associated companies.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by itself, its servants, or agents, or otherwise, or any person acting in concert with it or any person having notice of the making of any order of this Honourable Court from interfering with the Plaintiff's business interests and economic relations and restraining the Defendant from breaching or inducing breaches of the Plaintiffs commercial contracts.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant whether by itself, its servants or agents, from encouraging and/or permitting and/or allowing employees of the Plaintiff who are members of the Defendant from participating and/or supporting any strike or other industrial action taken on foot of a secret ballot which they were not invited to partake.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant whether by itself its servants or agents from causing, permitting, allowing and/or encouraging any employee of any associated subsidiary company of the Plaintiff who is not a member of the Irish Airline (General Employees) Superannuation Scheme from engaging in any strike or other industrial action.
Further and other relief including, if necessary, an order abridging time for the service of this Notice of Motion.
Costs."
3. Ryanair Ltd seek the following reliefs as set out in their notice of motion:-
"1. An interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, its servants or agents, or any person with knowledge of the making of such Order from directly or indirectly:
(a) Organising, directing, sanctioning or endorsing the participation of all or part of its members in a strike at Dublin Airport, Cork Airport, and Shannon Airport on 14 March 2014, or thereafter;
(b) Providing funding or other financial assistance or support to its membership (or part thereof) engaging in a strike at Dublin Airport, Cork Airport and Shannon Airport on 14 March 2014, or thereafter.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, its servants or agents or any person with knowledge of the making of such Order from directly or indirectly (or howsoever) adopting or relying upon or otherwise giving effect to any purported notice of industrial or strike action at Dublin Airport, Cork Airport and Shannon Airport on 14 March, 2014.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, its servants or agents or any person acting in concert with them or with knowledge of the making of such an order from directly or indirectly (or howsoever) interfering with the plaintiff's business and undertaking and commercial contracts on 14 March, 2014 (or thereafter) whether by recourse to a strike or otherwise, howsoever.
An interlocutory injunction requiring the defendant, its servants or agents to rescind any instructions to its membership (or part thereof) to engage in industrial or related action on 14 March, 2014, at Dublin Airport, Cork Airport and Shannon Airport.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, its servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from directly or indirectly (or howsoever) inducing and/or procuring and/or threatening to induce and/or threatening to induce or procure breaches of commercial contracts or by any other unlawful means howsoever, so as to cause loss, harm or damage to the plaintiff.
Further or other relief.
Costs."
4. I shall firstly deal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University College Cork v Services Industrial Professional Technical Union and Another
...already fully set out in my earlier judgment in Dublin Airport Authority Plc & Anor v. Services Industrial Professional Technical Union [2014] IEHC 644. 53 43. The central issue arising is that as the defendants' members who are employees of the plaintiff on the main campus at UCC were not ......