Sherriff v McMullen and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1957
• Date: 01 January 1957
• Court: Supreme Court

S.C.)

Sherriff

and

McMullen and Others

Interference with contractual rights of employer -Scope of protection of Trade Disputes Act, 1906 - Resignation of members from union - Effect of resignation on trade dispute - Effect of rejoining of union by resigned members - Non-revival of spent dispute - Whether trade dispute can exist between employer and trade union when no members of union employed.

The plaintiff was the owner of a saw mills at Bailieborough in the County of Cavan, and employed workmen whose numbers varied from time to time. The defendant, McM., was president of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. The defendant, H.B., was an employee of Irish Shoe Supplies (1946) Ltd., a member of the said Union, and the local secretary of the Union at Belturbet. The defendants, G.C. and T.J., were members of the Union and were both employed by a firm of metal workers at Bailieborough, About January, 1949, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and his employees on the question of wages. At the start of the dispute, the plaintiff had 12 employees engaged at his mill. They were members of the Union and the plaintiff was a member of the Employers' Federation, and the interests of the parties to the dispute were placed in the hands of the Union, on the one hand, and the Federation, on the other hand. The matter of wages was eventually referred to the Labour Court and strike action by the employees was deferred, by agreement, pending an investigation of the matter by that Court. The matter was listed to be heard by the Labour Court on the 23rdJuly, 1949. On the 7th June, 1949, whilst the hearing before the Labour Court was pending, and when the dispute was still in being, all the employees of the plaintiff then employed at the saw mills, save one, signed a joint letter addressed to the Union announcing their resignation from the Union. At that date some workmen who had been employed by the plaintiff at a previous time and who were temporarily unemployed owing to shortage of work, did not subscribe to this letter of resignation and remained members of the Union. On the re-employment by the plaintiff of any of these workmen who had not so resigned on 7th June, 1949, such workmen resigned from the Union before being re-employed. From the 7th June, 1949, onwards, there was no dispute between the plaintiff and any of his workmen as to waves or otherwise. On the 10th June, 1949, the defendant, McM., wrote to the plaintiff informing him that it was...