Harkins v Shannon Foynes Port Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Sullivan J
• Judgment Date: 29 January 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] IEHC 6
• Docket Number: No. 433p/2001
• Court: High Court
• Date: 29 January 2001

[2001] IEHC 6

THE HIGH COURT

No. 433p/2001

HARKINS v. SHANNON FOYNES PORT CO

BETWEEN

FRANK HARKINS

PLAINTIFF

AND

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY

DEFENDANT

Citations:

HARBOURS ACT 1996 S39(1)

Synopsis

Employment

Employment; injunctions; plaintiff claims that position of Harbour Engineer advertised by defendant has been his own job with defendant for several years; whether plaintiff has made out a case for trial that defendant's proposal would entail him having to accept less beneficial conditions of service within the contemplation of s.39(1) Harbours Act, 1996; whether on balance of convenience it would unduly frustrate the legitimate purposes of defendant to set out a description of position, which demonstrates clearly that position will not intrude on plaintiff's functions.

Held: Order granted prohibiting the defendant from advertising the position unless and until such advertisement makes clear that the position involves no overlap with the functions of the plaintiff's position.

Harkins v. Shannon Foynes Port Company - High Court: O'Sullivan J. - 29/01/2001

The plaintiff had been in the employment of the defendant as harbour engineer for several years. As part of an amalgamation process the defendant advertised the position of operations manager. The plaintiff claimed that aspects of the new position overlapped with his own and sought to injunct the advertising of the position. O'Sullivan J was satisfied that there was a degree of overlap involved. An injunction would therefore issue prohibiting the advertisement in question until it was made clear that the position advertised did not overlap with that of the plaintiff.

1 O'Sullivan Jdelivered 29th January, 2001

2 The Plaintiff seeks to restrain the Defendant from advertising the position of Harbour Engineer (however styled, and including the style of "Operations Manger") which job he says has been his own job with the Defendant for several years.

3 Mr. Hogan SC for the Defendant submits that due to the amalgamation of the functions of the Limerick and Foynes Harbour Authorities and their areas the job which the Defendants are advertising does not, and certainly does not materially, overlap with the Plaintiff's job, but comprises, rather, a new level of management which will involve from the Plaintiff's point of view a new reporting function.

4 Accordingly, it is submitted, that there can be no question of "less beneficial conditions of service" within the meaning of Section 39 (1) of the Harbours Act, 1996, which Section protects the pre-existing conditions of service of employees of Harbour Authorities who are transferred in circumstances such as apply to the Plaintiff in the present case.

5 Mr. Hogan further submits that the present is a clear example of a change in work practice rather than change in conditions ofservice.

6 The Plaintiff in his affidavit says that he was invited on 4th January, 2000 to apply for the new position of...