Dublin City Council v Technical, Engineering & Electrical Union and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Laffoy,Miss Justice Laffoy |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] IEHC 289,[2010] IEHC 288 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 09 June 2010 |
[2010] IEHC 288
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S8
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 PART II
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S19
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S11
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S19(2)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S11(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S11(2)
MALINCROSS LTD v BUILDING & ALLIED TRADES UNION & ORS 2002 3 IR 607 2002 13 ELR 78 2003/34/8106
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S14
G & T CRAMPTION LTD v BUILDING & ALLIED TRADE UNION & ORS 1998 1 ILRM 430 1998/7/1891
CAMPUS OIL LTD & ORS v MIN FOR INDUSTRY & ORS (NO 2) 1983 IR 88 1984 ILRM 85
KERR THE TRADE UNION & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 3ED 2007 205
P ELLIOTT & CO LTD v BUILDING & ALLIED TRADES UNION & ORS UNREP CLARKE 20.10.2006 2006/48/10161 2006 IEHC 320
TRADE UNIONS
Industrial action
Picketing - Interlocutory injunction - Restrain - Maintenance and repair of lifts in apartment blocks - Construction of s 11 - Serious issue to be tried - Whether premises place where picketers' employer worked or carried on business - Whether fair case established - Whether picketing unlawful - Whether acting in contemplation or furtherance of trade dispute - Whether pre-conditions to engaging in trade dispute fulfilled - Whether court precluded from granting injunction - Malincross v Building and Allied Trades Union [2002] 3 IR 607; G & T Crampton Ltd v BATU [1998] 1 ILRM 430 and Campus Oil v Minister for Industry (No 2) [1983] IR 88; considered - P Elliot & Co Ltd v Building & Allied Trades Union [2006] IEHC 320, (Unrep, HC, Clarke J, 20/10/2006) followed - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (No 19), ss 8, 11and 19 - Relief refused (2010/3695P - Laffoy J - 27/4/2010) [2010] IEHC 288
Dublin City Council v Technical Engineering & Electrical Union
Facts: The plaintiff sought interlocutory reliefs to restrain the defendants from picketing ten apartments at Ballymun in Dublin which were owned by the plaintiff and occupied by tenants of the plaintiff. The defendant was a trade union. A dispute arose between Pickerings, the company under contract to maintain and repair lifts in apartment block complexes, and the defendant Union, following a decision to make certain employees redundant. The issue arose as to the application of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and whether the picketing was occurring at a place of work or business of the plaintiff and whether the provisions of s. 19 of the Act had been complied with. The Court had to consider that for the purposes of s. 11 was the Union acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute? Secondly, given that the Union invoked the immunity conferred in s. 11(1), was the picketing taking place at a place of work or business? Thirdly, had the Union discharged the onus of establishing that the pre-conditions to the restraint of the Court's discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction in s. 19(2) had been complied with?
Held by Laffoy J. the reality was that the plaintiff had ignored s. 19(2) which was the primary focus of the Union. The members of the Union were picketing irrespective of contractual relations. The Court was satisfied that it was possible to make a determination as required pursuant to s. 19(2) and on the balance of probabilities, the pre-conditions in s. 19(2) were complied with before the Union engaged in industrial action. The Union had established a fair case that it was acting in contemplation of a trade dispute. The application had to be dismissed even though the plaintiff raised serious issue to be tried. The interim order had lapsed and the Court would refuse the application for an interlocutory injunction.
Reporter: E.F.
1. On this application the plaintiff seeks interlocutory relief formulated in six paragraphs of the notice of motion which issued on 20 th April, 2010. In essence, the plaintiff is seeking to have the defendants restrained, pending the trial of the action, from picketing ten apartment blocks at Ballymun in Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "the Ballymun location"), which are owned by the plaintiff and occupied by tenants of the plaintiff. Interim relief was granted to the plaintiff on an application made ex parte on 20 th April, 2010 and has been continued by consent of the first defendant until this judgment is given. The motion for interlocutory relief was heard on 23 rd April, 2010.
2. The first defendant (the Union) is a trade union which holds a negotiation licence and is a "trade union" within the meaning of that expression in s. 8 of Part II of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (the Act of 1990). The second and third defendants are members of the Union. The second and third defendants were not served with the notice of motion and were not individually represented at the hearing of the interlocutory application. On the application of the plaintiff, the application was adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter as against the second and third defendants.
3. There is little or no conflict between the parties as to the material facts.
4. For a number of years Pickerings Lifts Limited (Pickerings) was engaged under contract by the plaintiff to maintain and repair the lifts in ten apartment blocks at the Ballymun location. One of the blocks is fourteen storeys high and each of the remaining nine blocks is eight storeys high. The second and third defendants are employed by Pickerings and both have worked exclusively servicing the lifts at the Ballymun location, in the case of the second defendant, since 1987 and, in the case of the third defendant, since 2000.
5. In November 2009 a dispute arose between Pickerings and the Union as a result of three of the Union's members employed by Pickerings, not including the second and third defendants, having been laid off. On 17 th December, 2009 a secret ballot was held of the members of the Union employed by Pickerings. The ballot paper described the ballot as being for "Protective Industrial Action" and stated that industrial action could take any of the forms stipulated, including "the placing of pickets on the Company's premises". The result of the ballot was in favour of industrial action. On 27 th January, 2010 the Union gave seven days notice of industrial action to Pickerings. Subsequently, Pickerings was informed by the Union that "pickets will be placed on your company premises and sites" on 4 th February, 2010. On 4 th February 2010, without prior notice to the plaintiff, a picket was placed at the Ballymun location. There have been attempts to resolve the dispute through the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court as between the Union and Pickerings. The Labour Court issued a recommendation on 7 a April, 2010 following a hearing on 31 st March, 2010 which was not attended by Pickerings. Accordingly, the position is that the dispute between Pickerings and the Union and its members is ongoing.
6. As a result of the picketing at the Ballymun location, the maintenance and repair of the lifts has ceased in the apartment blocks. Currently, only two of the twenty seven lifts which service the ten blocks are working. As a result, the occupiers of the blocks, about 450 families, are being greatly inconvenienced and are suffering intolerable hardship. Those affected include families with young children whose parents have to carry small children and bring prams and buggies up the stairs, elderly people and wheelchair users.
7. By letter dated 19 th February, 2010 the plaintiff, having stated that due to industrial action by the staff employed by Pickerings the maintenance service for the lifts in the apartment blocks at the Ballymun location had not been provided since 4 th February, 2010, gave fourteen days notice to Pickerings of its intention to terminate its contract with Pickerings. The evidence before the Court indicates consensus on the part of both contracting parties, the plaintiff and Pickerings, that the contract has terminated.
8. According to the Union, pickets were placed on Pickerings' registered office at Dunboyne, County Meath and at Pickerings' "premises at Ballymun, consisting of a store and lockup". The position of the plaintiff is that, since the termination of its contract, Pickerings no longer has any connection with the plaintiff's Ballymun location. While the plaintiff recognises that Pickerings did "operate a form of base" at the plaintiff's Ballymun location, its contention is that it no longer has a presence there, as it no longer has any contract with the plaintiff
9. It has been averred on behalf of the plaintiff that it is in a position to have a new contractor maintain and repair the lifts in the apartment blocks and that the new contractor is in a position to start work forthwith, save that it has expressed the view that it will not do so in circumstances where a picket is in place at the apartment blocks. By letter dated 19 th February, 2010 the Union informed the plaintiff that it would continue to picket the apartment blocks even if the contract was passed on to another lift company.
10. In the case of trade disputes, the common law principles applicable to the grant of an interlocutory injunction are subject to the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1990, and, in particular, to the restrictions contained in s. 19. The substantive law on picketing in the context of a trade dispute is contained in s. 11. Section 8 is the definition section for the purposes of Part II. Picketing comes within the definition of "industrial action" in s. 8.
11. Section 19(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Industrial Action And The Law
...is defamatory. The High Court considered the term "works or carries on business" in Dublin City Council -v- T.E.E.U, Gannon and Cummins [2010] IEHC 289. Laffoy J. held that pickets can continue at a location once the employer involved in the dispute worked or carried on business there at th......