Fleming and Others v Ranks (Ireland) Ltd and O'Donoghue

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice McWilliam
• Judgment Date: 16 March 1983
• Neutral Citation: 1983 WJSC-HC 2582
• Court: High Court
• Date: 16 March 1983

1983 WJSC-HC 2582

No.1347p/1983

FLEMING v. RANK(IRELAND) LTD.& DONAL O'DONOGHUE

HARRY FLEMING & OTHERS

.v.

RANKS (IRELAND) LIMITED

and

DONAL O'DONOGHUE

Subject Headings:

INJUNCTION: interlocutory

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice McWilliam delivered the 16th day of March 1983

2 This application has been brought for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants from disposing of or dealing with the assets of the first-named Defendant, hereinafter described as Ranks, so as to reduce the value thereof below the sum of £83,724.92, and for an Order giving the Plaintiffs liberty to inspect the books and records of Ranks so as to ascertain what funds are available to satisfy the Plaintiffs’ claim in this action.

3 There are five Plaintiffs and they are claiming the sum above-mentioned which they allege is due to them for breach of contract or for misrepresentation, either innocent or fraudulent.

4 The agreement on which the Plaintiffs base their claim was entered into between Ranks and the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union (hereinafter called the Union). The Union was expressed to be acting on behalf of its members attached to Ranks’ Dublin North City Mill and the agreement was headed Ranks (Ireland) Limited - Dublin North City Mills Re-organisation 1978 - Productivity. Schedule B to this agreement set out details of compensation for various categories of employees made redundant.

5 The Plaintiff, Harry Fleming, filed two affidavits but did not state to which category of employees he belongs or any facts necessary to make the calculation of the alleged entitlement of the Plaintiffs in accordance with Schedule B. This aspect of the case was not considered at the hearing before me although there is a formal denial in an affidavit filed on behalf of the Defendants that the 1978 agreement does relate to Mr. Fleming's case. On the other hand, it is accepted on behalf of Banks that, if the agreement does apply, Mr. Fleming would be entitled to approximately £24,000.

6 The 1978 agreement was followed by an undated letter to an officer of the Union written by the second-named Defendant on behalf of Banks which stated as follows:- "The Company in the event of ‘redundancy’ following future plant investment or organisational alteration causing job reductions, would not discontinue the 1978/79 Company Redundancy Scheme unless it could be shown to the mutual satisfaction of the parties that such payments were financially unsustainable". Although an affidavit by an officer of the Union was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, neither party has suggested that there was any reply to this letter.

7 On 13th October, 1982, Ranks sent a letter to all employees stating that the company was sustaining huge and insupportable losses and that, to survive, up to two hundred jobs would be lost but that it was hoped that total site closures could be avoided. References in the letter to survival clearly indicated that the total closure mentioned was a possibility. This led to meetings between representatives from Ranks and from the Union and, at a meeting on 25th November 1982, Ranks offered redundancy payments at the rates set out in the Redundancy Payments Acts plus sixty per cent. of such payments. This offer was rejected by the Union and the matter was referred to the Labour Court which, by determination made on 7th January, 1983, recommended that redundancy payments should be made on the basis of paying one half of the payments set out in the 1978 agreement immediately and the balance one year later. Ranks then stated that it was unable to make such a substantial payment and the Union issued strike notice for 19th January, 1982. This was followed by an announcement by Ranks that the mills in Dublin and Limerick would have to close on 4th February, 1983. Further meetings took place which resulted in proposals which were accepted by a majority of members of the Onion, but this decision was not accepted by the Plaintiffs who commenced to picket the Dublin mill.

8 Whatever terms were agreed by the members who accepted the proposals, Ranks now claim that the Plaintiffs are only entitled to the statutory redundancy payments.

9 The agreement accepted by the majority appears to hare been reached on the basis that it involved Ranks in no legal liability and that the Onion's acceptance was without prejudice to its position in relation to the decision of the Labour Court. Fortunately, on this application, I am not required to consider the effect of this unusual provision.

10 Accounts hare been furnished by Banks purporting to show that the terms of the 1978 agreement are now financially unsustainable but these accounts are not accepted by the Plaintiffs as establishing this.

11 There are unusual features in the case. The Plaintiffs refused to accept the closure of the mill and went into occupation of it. They were committed to Mount joy prison for this activity but, on their release, returned to their occupation of it and are still denying Ranks access to it.

12 The Plaintiffs, Harry Fleming and Dermot O'Donnell, have stated on affidavit that they are members of the Union, but they wrote to Banks in May and June, 1982, respectively, to say that they were no longer members of the Union and asking that their subscriptions should be discontinued. The affidavit by the officer of the Union does not refer to the membership or non-membership of the Plaintiffs in the Union.

13 In the affidavit of the Plaintiff, Harry Fleming, he alleges that a substantial asset of Ranks consists of wheat and flour at the Dublin mill and that this asset is perishable, but, by their occupation of the mill, the Plaintiffs have prevented...