G. T. Crampton Ltd v Building and Allied Trade Union

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Hamilton C.J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1998
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1998

1998 WJSC-SC 1891

THE SUPREME COURT

HAMILTON C.J.

O'FLAHERTY J.

BARRINGTON J.

359/97

G & T CRAMPTON LTD v. BUILDING & ALLIED TRADES UNION

BETWEEN:

G. & T. CRAMPTON LTD.

.v.

BUILDING & ALLIED TRADES UNION & ORS.

Citations:

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S11

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S19(1)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S19(2)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S11(4)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S11(1)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S11(2)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990 S14

Synopsis

Employment

Industrial action; injunction; trade dispute; conduct of ballot; whether injunction should be granted to employer restraining picketing of premises by trade union; requirements to be fulfilled in relation to industrial action; whether members given a fair opportunity of voting; whether nature of industrial action should be particularised on ballot paper; whether fair question raised as to ballot; balance of convenience; damages; Industrial Relations Act, 1990 Held: Injunction granted; appeal dismissed (Supreme Court: Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty J., Barrington J. (ex-tempore)12/12/1997)

G. & T. Crampton Ltd. v. Building & Allied Trades Union

[1998] 1 ILRM 430

1 Ex-tempore Ruling delivered on the 12th day of December1997by Hamilton C.J. [NEM DISS]

2 This is an appeal brought by the first and second named defendants named in the proceedings and they will be hereinafter referred to as the appellants. This matter comes before this Court by way of an appeal brought by the appellants against the judgment of the High Court delivered on the 20th day of November 1997. The matter had come before the High Court by way of a notice of motion dated the 18th day of November 1997 in which was sought an order restraining the defendants, pending the trial of the action, from watching, besetting or picketing the plaintiff's construction site at Collins"Avenue, Glasnevin in the City of Dublin, and from interfering with access to or egress from the plaintiff's said construction site.

3 The matter arose because of the fact that the Defendants had placed a picket on the plaintiff's premises on the 17th day of November 1997. The application for the relief sought in the notice of motion was grounded on an affidavit of Mr. Patrick Walsh and the affidavits referred to. The matter was dealt with expeditiously by the learned trial judge, as is necessary in all applications of this kind when an application is made by an employer or occupier of the site to restrain picketing of their premises, because of the consequences that such picketing can have including disruption of the business being carried out on the site by employers such as the plaintiff. We all know that picketing is a very strong weapon in the armoury of a trade union, when acting lawfully in furtherance of a trade dispute. As I say the application to the High Court was grounded on the affidavit and the exhibits.

4 During the course of the hearing further and additional affidavits were filed because of the time constraint placed on the parties to bring all the matters that they considered relevant to the application before the High Court.

5 The learned trial judge had before her all the relevant information other than the affidavit of Mr. Lamond dealing with the circumstances of the ballot carried out by the Trade Union concerned.

6 This Court has the benefit of that affidavit and considers itself entitled to rely on it because it is called upon to deal with the circumstances as of the time of the appeal before it and deal with the issues which are before it.

7 The learned trial judge delivered her judgment on the 20th day of November of this year, the matter of the application having been before her on the 18th and 19th days of November so she is to be commenced (as I hope that the parties will commend this Court) for the expedition with which she gave her judgment on the difficult matters and difficult issues which arose upon the hearing before her.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

8 The application for the injunction was contested by the defendants on a number of grounds and in particular they relied on, in the first instance, the provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 and also on the provisions of Section 19 (1) and (2) of that Act and I think it is desirable at this stage very briefly to refer to the provisions of Section 11 of the Act and inparticular sub-section 4 of Section 11 because it is relevant to the position that the appellants take before this Court.

9 Section 11(1) provides that it shall be lawful for one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to attend at or, where that is not practicable, at the approaches to a place where their employer works or carries on business if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from work.

10 And I would like at this stage to emphasise that it does not appear on any of the affidavits before the learned trial judge that the picket that was being carried out was other than a peaceful picket for the purpose of communicating information with regard to the nature of thedispute.

11 Sub-section 4 of Section 11 provides that it shall be lawful for a trade union official to accompany any member of his Union whom he represents provided that the members are acting in the accordance with the provisions of sub-section ( 1) or (2) and provided that such official is attending merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from work.

12 Section 14 deals with the changes to be brought about in the rules of trade unions for the purpose of complying with requirements of Section 14 of the Act and it is clear from the rules that were handed into court that the rules of the Union were amended in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. In view of the issues that have been raised in these proceedings and before this Court, the rules provide inter alia, that the Union will not organise, participate in, sanction or support a strike or other industrial action without a secret ballot, entitlement to vote in which shall be accorded equally to all members whom it is reasonable at the time of the ballot to believe will be called upon to engage in the strike or other industrial action.

13 Rule 6 of the Union provides:

14 "The Union shall take reasonable steps to ensure that every member entitled to vote in the ballot, votes without interference from or constraint imposed by the Union or any of its members, officials or employees and so far as is reasonably possible that such members shall be given a fair opportunity of voting."

15 This obviously entails the necessity of informing such members of the fact that a ballot is being held, the nature of the ballot and they should be afforded a fair opportunity of voting on it.

16 The other section of the Act referred to in these proceedings is...