Irish Municipal Public & Civil Trade Union and Others v Ryanair Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Miss Justice Laffoy |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] IEHC 118 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 06 April 2006 |
[2006] IEHC 118
THE HIGH COURT
AND
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 2004
CONSTITUTION ART 40.6.1 (iii)
ABBOTT v WHELAN v ITGWU & ORS UNREP MCWILLIAM 2.12.1980 (EX TEMPORE)
DUBLIN COLLEGES OF ACADEMIC STAFF ASSOCIATION & ORS v CITY DUBLIN VEC & ORS UNREP HAMILTON 31.7.1981
ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS LTD v MIN HEALTH 1995 1 IR 382
WILSON v UK 2002 35 EHRR 523
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 11
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMDT) ACT 2001 S2
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2004
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMDT) ACT 2001 S2(1)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S 2
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S4
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S6
IRISH PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETY v CALDWELL 1979 ILRM 273
SUN FAT CHAN v OSSEOUS LTD 1992 1 IR 425
BULA LTD v TARA MINES LTD (NO 2) 1987 IR 95
CARROLL v RYAN & ORS 2003 1 IR 309
A (A) v THE MEDICAL COUNCIL & ORS 2003 4 IR 302
HENDERSON v HENDERSON 1843 3 HARE 100
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Dismissal of proceedings Jurisdiction of court to dismiss proceedings - Locus standi of plaintiff to bring proceedings - Whether pleadings disclose reasonable cause of action - Whether any legal right of plaintiff infringed by defendant - Whether proceedings frivolous and vexatious - Whether difficult questions of law should be determined by court in application to strike out proceedings - Whether repeated actions concerning same subject matter can amount to abuse of process - Application dismissed (2005/2479P - Laffoy J - 6/4/2006) [2006] IEHC 118 Irish Municipal Public and Civil Trade Union v Ryanair
Facts: the first plaintiff was a trade union of which the other plaintiffs, all pilots, were members. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, inter alia, breached their right, under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, to freedom of association in refusing to engage in collective bargaining. The defendant sought an order striking out the proceedings on the grounds that they were unsustainable, vexatious and disclosed no cause of action. The defendant further contended that the first plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the claims. In particular, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that there was no obligation under the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights for an employer to negotiate with a union.
Held by Miss Justice Laffoy in dismissing the defendant’s application that the proceedings involved the investigation of questions of general importance in the context of recent changes in domestic law, which raised issues as to the impact of the State’s international obligations on its domestic law. As such, given that novel and difficult questions of law were raised by the proceedings, they should not be determined on a summary application to strike out.
Reporter: P.C.
Judgment of Miss Justice Laffoy delivered on 6th April, 2006.
These proceedings, as counsel for the plaintiff put it, are part of a wider tableau involving the first plaintiff (the Union), which is a registered trade union with a negotiating licence, and the second to sixty-fourth plaintiffs (the Employees), who are commercial pilots employed by the defendant and are members of the Union, on the one hand, and the defendant, on the other hand, concerning, broadly speaking, the policy of the defendant not to engage in collective bargaining with any representative association or trade union on behalf of pilots. The proceedings were initiated by plenary summons which issued on 14th July, 2005. This application, on foot of a notice of motion which issued on 4th August, 2005, seeks orders against the Union and the Employees striking out the proceedings. Both O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court are invoked. The grounds relied on are that the proceedings are unsustainable, frivolous and vexatious, disclose no cause of action against the defendant, and are an abuse of process. As regards the Union, there is a further ground that it has no locus standi to maintain the claims. By direction of the court, the plaintiff's statement of claim was delivered prior to the hearing of the application.
Both sides furnished comprehensive written submissions to the court outlining, inter alia, the jurisprudence on the circumstances in which the court will strike out proceedings at this stage. There was little divergence between the parties on the applicable principles of law, which are well established. Where the parties diverged, it seems to me, was in identifying the substantive issues raised on the plaintiffs” claim.
The factual basis of the plaintiffs” claim, as pleaded, is that, in November, 2004, the Union invited the defendant to enter into collective bargaining concerning, inter alia, the movement of pilots from aircraft of one type (Boeing 737-200) to another type (Boeing 737-800) and the training required for such movement, but the defendant declined the invitation. Subsequently, on various dates, the defendant wrote to pilots employed by it offering them conversion training at a cost to the defendant of €15,000. Each letter threatened the addressee with dismissal on the ground of redundancy should he or she fail to accept the offer within a given period. Further û
(a) each letter included a condition that, if the defendant was compelled to engage in collective bargaining with any pilot association or trade union within five years of commencement of the conversion training, then the addressee would be liable to repay the full training costs to the defendant;
(b) some of the letters included a condition that, upon acceptance of the offer, the addressee was required to confirm that he had no claims against the defendant under the Industrial Relations Act, 2004 and to confirm that any claims made were withdrawn; and
(c) some of the letters included an alternative offer whereby the addressee might pay the cost of conversion training in the amount of €15,000, thereby avoiding dismissal on the ground of redundancy and having to accept the conditions set out at (a) and (b).
I have noted that counsel for the defendant took issue with some of the language used by the plaintiffs in pleading the facts, for example, the use of the word "threatened". Further, he asserted that what was alleged at (c) above was not a fair analysis of the relevant letters. The plaintiffs acknowledged that the offers in issue were made not only to the Employees, but also to pilots employed by the defendant who are members of the Union but are not party to these proceedings and pilots employed by the defendant who are not members of the Union.
The civil wrongs on the part of the defendant which the plaintiffs allege on the basis of those facts are: breach of the plaintiffs” constitutional right to freedom of association; breach of the plaintiffs” rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention); and commission of the torts of conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract, and intentional interference with the plaintiffs” contractual and commercial relations or the plaintiffs” economic and commercial interests by the defendant. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs have suffered loss, damage, inconvenience and expense in consequence of those wrongs.
The primary relief claimed by the plaintiffs is a declaration that the defendant's actions "in offering financial inducements to, and/or threatening to impose penalties upon, its employees with the object or effect of inducing the said employees to refrain from carrying on collective bargaining through a trade union, are unlawful and in breach of the constitutional and legal rights" of the plaintiffs. Following on from that, the plaintiffs claim an injunction restraining the defendant from acting in that manner. The plaintiffs claim damages for unjust attack on the plaintiffs” constitutional rights and also for the alleged tortious activity. The plaintiffs also claim, in the alternative, declarations that the law is incompatible with the State's obligations under the Convention, if the law fails either to render unlawful, or to provide an adequate remedy to prevent, the actions which the plaintiffs seek to impugn.
The principal ground on which the defendant contends that the plaintiffs” claim as outlined is not sustainable and must fail is an assertion that it does not disclose the infringement by the defendant of any legal right of any of the plaintiffs. In particular, while the defendant recognises that the Employees, as citizens, have, by virtue of Article 40.6.1(iii) of the Constitution a constitutional right to form associations and...
To continue reading
Request your trial