National Union of Railwaymen and Others v Sullivan and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 July 1947
• Date: 06 July 1947
• Court: Supreme Court

National Union of Railwaymen and Others v. Sullivan and Others

THE NATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYMEN and JOHN BENSTEAD, CECIL D. WATTERS, CHARLES STRICKLAND, BERNARD O'HAGAN and JOSEPH PHELAN, suing on behalf of themselves and the members of the NationalUnion Of Railwaymen and of the members of the National Union of Railwaymen employed in the road passenger services of Coras IompairEireann, and JAMES DALY

Plaintiffs

and

DANIEL SULLIVAN, P. J. CAIRNS and OWEN HYNESand THE IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION

Defendants.

Supreme Court

Constitution - Right to form associations and unions - Validity of statute restricting such right - Statutory tribunal empowered to grant organising monoply to particular trade unions - Prohibition on enrolment of new members by other unions - Validity of such provisions - Whether denial of constitutional right or merely regulation of its exercise - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Art. 15, clause 4, pars. 1 and 2; Art. 40, clause 6, pars. 1and 2 - Trade Union Act, 1941 (No. 22 of 1941), Part III.

The Trade Union Act, 1941, by Part III thereof, provided for the constitution of a "trade union tribunal" with power, on the application of any trade union claiming to have organised, for the purpose of negotiating as to wages or conditions of employment, a majority of the workmen of a particular class, to grant or refuse, as the tribunal might consider proper in the public interest, a determination that such union alone (or two or more specified unions alone), should have the right so to organise workmen of that class. The Act gave a limited right of appeal from decisions of the tribunal to a special "appeal board," and further provided that, where such a determination had been granted to a particular union and remained unrevoked, no other union should accept, as a new member, any workman of the class in question.

The I. T. and G. W. Union applied to the tribunal set up under the Act for a determination that it should have the sole right to organise, for the purposes above-mentioned, workmen employed in the road passenger service of the statutory transport undertaking, Coras Iompair Eireann. Before the hearing of such application, the N.U.R., a rival trade union, and certain workmen of the class affected, issued proceedings in the High Court claiming a declaration that Part III of the Trade Union Act, 1941, was invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, and, in particular, to Art. 40, clause 6 thereof.

Article 40, clause 6, par. 1, of the Constitution provides:—

"The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:— . . . . iii. The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.

Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right."

Article 40, clause 6, par. 2 of the Constitution provides:—

"Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination."

Held by the High Court (Gavan Duffy J.) that the statutory provisions in question merely regulated the exercise of the right of citizens to form associations and unions, and that the Legislature's constitutional powers of regulation included power to impose the statutory restrictions and prohibitions in question.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

On appeal by the plaintiffs from the order of Gavan Duffy J., Held by the Supreme Court that the provisions of Part III of the Trade Union Act, 1941, by purporting to deprive citizens of the choice of the persons with whom they might associate, were at variance with the emphatic assertion in Art. 40 of the Constitution of the citizens' right to form associations and unions accordingly Part III of the Act was in its main principles repugnant to the Constitution and invalid.

The order of the High Court was accordingly reversed and the appeal allowed.

Witness Action.

The plaintiffs on the 27th day of April, 1945, issued a plenary summons in the High Court, claiming a declaration that Part III of the Trade Union Act, 1941, was invalid as being repugnant to the Constitution; alternatively, they claimed a declaration that workers employed in the road passenger services of Coras Iompair Eireann in a number of specified capacities did not constitute a "class" within the meaning of s. 26 of the said Act; an injunction to restrain the three first-named defendants (who were members of the Trade Union Tribunal set up under Part III of the said Act), from hearing an application under s. 26 of the said Act for a determination that the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union be given the sole right of organising workers of a specified class for a particular purpose; an injunction restraining the defendant union from proceeding with such application; further or other relief and costs. The capacities in which the several plaintiffs respectively sued and the matters upon which the action was founded were set out in the statement of claim, which was in the following terms:—

"1. The plaintiffs, the National Union of Railwaymen (hereinafter called the plaintiff Union), is a trade union registered in England, having its registered office at [address given] and having an office or place of business at [address given] in the City of Dublin. The plaintiff Union is an authorised trade union within the meaning of Part III of the Trade Union Act, 1941, and is the holder of a negotiation licence granted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce pursuant to the provisions of s. 10 of the said Act. The plaintiff Union has over 9,000 members organised within the national territory whereof over 6,000 are employed within the State and are citizens.

2. The plaintiff, John Benstead, is the general secretary of the plaintiff Union; the plaintiff, Cecil D. Watters, is the chief organising secretary for Ireland of the plaintiff Union, and the plaintiffs, Charles Strickland and Bernard O'Hagan, are members of the plaintiff Union and are employed in the road passenger services of Coras Iompair Eireann in the area of Ireland, and the plaintiff, Joseph Phelan, is a member of the plaintiff Union employed by Coras Iompair Eireann. All the plaintiffs in this paragraph mentioned sue personally and as representing all the members of the plaintiff Union and as representing all the members of the plaintiff Union employed in the road passenger services of Coras Iompair Eireann in the area of Ireland, all such members having the same interest in the relief claimed in this action.

3. The plaintiff, James Daly, is a labourer employed as such in the road passenger and other services of Coras Iompair Eireann and is not a member of the plaintiff Union.

4. [Descriptions of the several defendants were given.]

5. On or about the 23rd day of September, 1941, the Oireachtas purported to enact a law, to wit the Trade Union Act, 1941 (No. 22 of 1941), which law is, in respect of Part III thereof, repugnant to the Constitution and, in particular, to the provisions of Arts. 15 and 40 thereof. Part III of the said Act violates the personal rights of citizens and the constitutional guarantee of the right of citizens to form associations and unions, and contains a class discrimination. Part III of the said Act purports to authorise the regulation and control in the public interest of the right to form associations and unions by the Trade Union Tribunal therein provided for and otherwise than by law.

6. On the 8th day of March, 1943, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, purporting to act under the authority of s. 18 of the said Act, made an order entitled 'Trade Union Act, 1941 (Commencement of Part III) Order, 1943,' bringing the provisions of Part III of the said Act into operation on the 5th April, 1943.

7. On or about the 19th day of October, 1943, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, purporting to act in pursuance of the provisions of Part III of the said Act, established the Trade Union Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), and on or about the 30th day of October, 1944, purporting to act in pursuance of the said provisions, the said Minister appointed the defendant, Daniel Sullivan, to be chairman and the defendants, Philip J. Cairns and Owen Hynes, and two other persons to be ordinary members of the Tribunal for the period beginning on the 1st day of November, 1944, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1945. The defendants, Philip J. Cairns and Owen Hynes, were appointed from the workmen's panel and the said two other persons were appointed from the masters' panel maintained by the said Minister in that behalf and pursuant to the said Act.

8. On or about the 14th day of April, 1945, the defendant Union applied to the Tribunal to grant a determination that the defendant Union alone shall have the right to organise workmen of the following alleged class for the purpose of the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment, namely:— Workers employed in the road passenger (including tramway) service of Coras Iompair Eireann in the area of Ireland as" — [There followed a list of different categories of workmen.]

"9." [This clause alleged that the three first-named defendants threatened and intended to hear, as such Tribunal, an application by the defendant Union.]

"10. If the said determination is granted, Part III of the said Act purports to provide that neither the plaintiff Union, nor any union other than the defendant Union, shall thereafter, for so long as the said determination remains unrevoked, organise workmen of the alleged class referred to in par. 8 hereof for the purpose of the carrying on of negotiations for the fixing of wages and other conditions of employment, and shall not accept as new members any workmen of the said alleged class, and further that such of the plaintiffs...