State (Stephen's Green Club and Another) v The Labour Court

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1961
• Date: 01 January 1961
• Docket Number: (1960. No. 31 S.S.)
• Court: High Court

The State (Stephen's Green Club and Another v. The Labour Court.

THE STATE (at the Prosecution of the STEPHEN'S GREEN CLUB and DAVID MAHONY)

and

THE LABOUR COURT. In the Matter of the Courts of Justice Acts 1924 to 1959 and In the Matter of the Industrial Relations Act

1946.

(1960. No. 31 S.S.)

Prohibition - Jurisdiction - Labour Court - Whether prohibition lies in relation to the Labour Court when the Court is carrying out its functions pursuant to s. 7 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Meaning of "worker" -"Trade dispute" - Industrial Relations Act (No. 26 of 1946), ss. 3, 4, 67, 68, 71.

The, word, "worker," as defined in the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, s. 4, is not limited to persons employed in trade or industry as is the expression"workmen," as defined in the Trade Disputes Acts, 1906, and it includes all persons employed under a contract of employment.

So held by Walsh J.

Held further by Walsh J. that an order of prohibition will not lie against the Labour Court when that court is exercising the functions and powers conferred upon it by the provisions of s. 67 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

Motion on Notice.

The prosecutor, David Mahony, on behalf of the Stephen's Green Club obtained in the High Court a conditional order of prohibition directed to the Labour Court prohibiting it from enquiring into the wages and conditions of employment of certain employees of the Club. The conditional order was granted on the grounds 1, that the enquiry was ultra viresthe Labour Court, and 2, that the enquiry amounted to an excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Labour Court by the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and by order of the Court was served upon each of the six members of the Labour Court and upon the secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. Affidavits were duly filed by way of showing cause against the making absolute of the conditional order by the registrar of the Labour Court. The prosecutor served a notice of motion to make absolute the conditional order of prohibition notwithstanding the cause shown.

The further facts are fully set out in the judgment of Walsh J. (post).

Cur. adv. vult.

Walsh J. :— 16 Dec.

On the 4th July, 1960, the prosecutor, David Mahony, on behalf of the Stephen's Green Club sought and obtained a conditional order of prohibition directed to the Labour Court prohibiting it from entering upon enquiry as to the wages and conditions of employment of certain employees of the Club. The grounds upon which the conditional order was granted were first, that the enquiry was ultra vires the Labour Court, and, secondly, that it amounted to an excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Labour Court by the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It was directed that the conditional order should be served upon each of the six members of the Labour Court and in addition upon the secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. The Labour Court on the 14th July showed cause against making absolute the conditional order by an affidavit filed on that day and sworn by the registrar of the Labour

Court, Mr. Myles Gavagan. An affidavit was also filed, apparently not by way of showing cause, on behalf of the secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union on the 13th July, 1960. This affidavit was sworn by Mr. Michael Mullen who is branch secretary of the Hotel Workers (Number 4 Hotel and Restaurant) Branch of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union On the 19th July, 1960, the prosecutor served a notice of motion to make absolute the conditional order of prohibition notwithstanding the cause shown.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: the Stephen's Green Club is an unincorporated members' club which does not carry on any trade or industry and its activities are of a purely social and domestic nature. The affairs of the club are administered by the committee of the club on behalf of its members and the property of the club is vested in trustees. On the 26th February, 1960, the prosecutor, as secretary of the club, received a letter, bearing the same date, from Mr. Mullen informing him that he, Mr. Mullen, was instructed by his branch committee to request Mr. Mahony to nominate an early time and date upon which the representatives of the Club would be prepared to meet representatives of that branch of the Trade Union for the purpose of "discussing and improving the wages and conditions of members of the Union employed in the Club."Mr. Mahony's first reply, which was on the 2nd March, 1960, simply stated that so far as he was aware no members of the staff of the Club were members of the Union. To that Mr. Mullen retorted by letter of the 7th March, 1960, that there was a number of their members on the staff of the Club and that, furthermore, he was insisting on an immediate conference to discuss wages and conditions of these members. He went on to say that he might have no option but to convene a meeting of those members to ascertain from them if they were prepared to enter into a trade dispute with the Club with a view to ensuring that "proper wages and conditions" are applied to members of his branch employed in the Club. Mr. Mahony's first reply to that letter was to express surprise at learning that some members of the staff of his Club were members of the Union, but by a further letter of the 12th March, 1960, he pointed out that the Club was purely of a private and social nature, that its activities did not relate in any way to trade or industry, nor were its employees engaged in such and that they were in fact domestic servants. He claimed that no question of a trade dispute could arise. Mr. Mullen's reply, by letter of the 16th March. was to disagree that the employees concerned...