Hayes v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Miss Justice Carroll
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 731
• Docket Number: No. 2617 P/1981
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1987

1986 WJSC-HC 731

THE HIGH COURT

No. 2617 P/1981

HAYES v. IRELAND, MIN EDUCATION

BETWEEN

LIAM HAYES (FORMERLY AN INFANT BUT NOW OF FULL AGE)

PLAINTIFF

AND

IRELAND, THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' ORGANISATION AND ORS.

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

COSGROVE V IRELAND 1982 ILRM 48

CROWLEY V IRELAND 1980 IR 102

MESKELL V CIE 1973 IR 121

TRADE DISPUTES ACT 1906 S4

TRADE UNION ACT 1941 S11

CONSTITUTION ART 42.4

Synopsis:

ACTION

Immunity

Exception - Trade union - Union's actions in furtherance of trade dispute - Actions infringed plaintiff's right to receive education under Article 42, s.4, of the Constitution - Held that s.4 of Act of 1906 did not provide the defendant union with a defence to plaintiff's action for damages - ~See~ Constitution, personal rights - Trade Disputes Act, 1906, s.4 - (1981/2617 P - Carroll J. - 6/10/86) - [1987] ILRM 651

|Hayes v. Ireland|

CONSTITUTION

Personal rights

Infringement - Damages - Free primary education - Right of plaintiff to receive such education - Trade dispute - Withdrawal of labour by teachers at plaintiff's school - Prevention of continuance of plaintiff's education at neighbouring school - Defendant trade union directed its members in neighbouring schools to abstain from enrolling pupils from the plaintiff's school - The purpose of defendant union was to apply pressure to manager of plaintiff's school in furtherance of dispute - Held that the plaintiff had a right under Article 42, s.4, to receive free primary education - Held that the plaintiff's constitutional right had been infringed by the defendant union which had employed unlawful means to further its interests - ~Crowley v. Ireland~ [1980] I.R. 102 applied - Held that s.4 of the Act of 1906 did not provide the defendant union with a defence to the plaintiff's action - Held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the loss he had suffered by reason of the actions of the defendant union, the defendant members of its national executive and some of the defendant teachers - Held that the plaintiff was entitled to #4,000 general damages, including compensation for his mental distress - Judgment for #4,000 damages entered against such defendants - Trade Disputes Act, 1906, s.4 - Articles 40, 42 - (1981/2617 P - Carroll J. - 6/10/86) - [1987] ILRM 651

|Hayes v. Ireland|

DAMAGES

Constitution

Personal rights - Infringement - Defendant's actions infringed plaintiff's right to receive free primary education under Article 42, s.4, of the Constitution - Held that plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendant - ~See~ Constitution, personal rights - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Articles 40, 42 - (1981/2617 P - Carroll J. - 6/10/86) - [1987] ILRM 651

|Hayes v. Ireland|

TRADE UNION

Immunity

Exception - Trade dispute - Trade union's actions in furtherance of dispute - Actions infringing plaintiff's right to receive free primary education under Article 42, s.4, of the Constitution - Plaintiff instituted action for damages against defendant union - Held that s.4 of the Act of 1906 did not provide the defendant union with a defence to the plaintiff's action - ~See~ Constitution, personal rights - Trade Disputes Act, 1906, s.4 - (1981/2617 P - Carroll J. - 6/10/86) - [1987] ILRM 651

|Hayes v. Ireland|

1 Judgment of Miss Justice Carroll delivered on the 6th day of October 1986 .

2 This action arises out of the school strike in Drimoleague, County Cork in 1976/77 and in particular to the issue of a directive by the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) to their members in the schools adjoining Drimoleague Parish on the 20th August 1976 directing them not to enrol pupils from the affected schools. It is a claim for damages for breach of the constitutional right to free primary education under Article 42, Section 4, of the Constitution by one of the pupils affected by the strike. He has brought the action against Ireland, the Minister for Education and the Attorney General (the 1st to the 3rd named Defendants), the INTO (the 4th named Defendant), the individual members of the National Executive of that union (the 5th to the 24th named Defendants), the teachers in the schools adjoining Drimoleague Parish (the 25th to the 38th named Defendants) and the teachers in Drimoleague Parish itself (the 41st to 46th named Defendants) all of whom are members of the INTO. The action has been discontinued against Ireland, the Minister for Education and the Attorney General and also against all the teachers except Nan Hurley (25th named Defendant), Eoghan O'Suilleaghain (26th named Defendant), Con O'Rourke (28th named Defendant), Michael O'Sullivan (29th named Defendant) and Edith Bentley (30th named Defendant).

3 That a cause of action exists has been established in the case of Crowley .v. Ireland and Ors. ( 1980 I.R. 102) and the facts surrounding the strike are set out in the Judgments of McMahon J. in the High Court and O'Higgins C.J. and Kenny J. in the Supreme Court.

4 To summarize very briefly, the initial cause of the strike was when Mr. Nicholas McCarthy applied for the position of Principal teacher of Drimoleague National School when he was not eligible for appointment. Notwithstanding this, Father Crowley, the Parish Priest, appointed him. The Department of Education refused to sanction the appointment as Mr. McCarthy had not got the necessary number of years as a teacher. The job was readvertised and the same persons applied. The Department of Education said that none of the eligible applicants were regarded as possessing the standard of general suitability considered desirable for the post. In fact the Department subsequently acknowledged that one of the applicants, Mr. Collins, who was Principal of Dromore National School and a member of the Executive Committee of the INTO, did possess the desired standard of general suitability.

5 In the Summer of 1975 Father Crowley got permission from the Department to appoint a temporary Principal for the coming school year on the clear understanding that the person appointed would have no claim to appointment in a permanent capacity by virtue of his being given temporary recognition. Father Crowley then appointed Mr. McCarthy as temporary Principal. Despite repeated reminders from the Department and repeated efforts by the INTO to resolve the dispute, Father Crowley and the Board of Management (which had then come into being) refused to readvertise the post. The INTO served strike notice and the teachers in the Drimoleague schools withdrew their services on the 1st of April 1976 with the exception of Mr. McCarthy who continued to teach. Initially seven schools were affected but this was subsequently reduced to the three schools under Father Crowley's management. The strike did not have the desired effect. It was not until the end of the school year that the post was readvertised. Mr. McCarthy reapplied and was appointed to the position in July 1976. By an action which was never explained, the Department of Education, in spite of the express terms upon which Mr. McCarthy was appointed, sanctioned his appointment in a permanent capacity.

6 It was following this that the INTO issued the directive in August 1976 to their members in adjoining schools not to enrol the Drimoleague pupils. This directive was not withdrawn until June 1977.

7 In his Judgment McMahon J. was doubtful whether the refusal to enrol was the exercise of a constitutional right. Assuming without so deciding that the INTO members were exercising a constitutional right in refusing to enrol the children from Dromore, he held that what was done amounted to the use of unlawful means to deprive the Drimoleague children of their constitutional right and held that it was actionable at the suit of the children who could show that they had been deprived of their constitutional right by the action of the teachers. At page 111 he says:-

"The question of whether any of the plaintiffs is entitled to damages in accordance with this judgment and, if so, the amount of damages must stand reserved."

8 The INTO did not appeal the judgment in any aspect and the Supreme Court appeal was an appeal by the State against the judgment as it affected the State's constitutional obligations. However, in the majority judgment Kenny J. says (at page 128)

"The trial judge (Mr. Justice McMahon) held that the circular was an unlawful interference with the constitutional rights of the infant plaintiffs to free primary education. I think that he was right in doing so; it is significant that INTO and the members of its central executive committee have not appealed against this finding. Therefore, INTO have been held to have caused an unlawful interference with the constitutional...