University College Cork v Services Industrial Professional Technical Union and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Gilligan |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 282 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 11 May 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 282
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Premises – Industrial Relations Act 1990 – Interlocutory injunction.
Facts: The defendant, through a secret ballot by employees of the plaintiff limited to a certain premises, had a mandate to take industrial action against the plaintiff regarding the issues of the employees related to the aforesaid premises. The employees of the plaintiff related to other premises had not participated in the secret ballot. The defendant had decided to picket the main university campus in furtherance of industrial action. Therefore, the plaintiff now sought interlocutory injunctions pending the trial of the action to restrain the defendants from undertaking certain activities at the main campus premises of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the application of the plaintiff was misconceived in law.
Mr. Justice Gilligan held that the application for an order for interlocutory injunctions restraining the defendants from undertaking certain activities at the main campus premises of the plaintiff would be granted. The Court observed that the work of plaintiff would be affected regarding students taking the end of year examinations and stated that damages would not be an adequate remedy in that circumstance.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Gilligan delivered on the 11th day of May, 2015
1. The plaintiff in these proceedings is seeking two interlocutory injunctions pending the trial of the action herein as follows:-
(1) An injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, whether by themselves, their officers servants or agents or otherwise, or any person acting in concert with them or either of them or any person having notice of the making of any order of this Honourable Court from watching and/or besting and/or picketing any of the plaintiff's main campus premises situate in the City of Cork other than the premises known as the Tyndall National Institute situate at Lee Maltings, Dyke Parade, Cork.
(2) An injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, whether by themselves, their officers servants or agents or otherwise, or any person acting in concert with them or either of them or any person having notice of the making of any order of this Honourable Court from interfering with access to and/or egress to any of the plaintiff's main campus premises situate in the City of Cork.
2. The plaintiff university has a significant research institute, referred to as the "Tyndall National Institute" which is part of the university but located physically distant at Lee Maltings, Dyke Parade in Cork, approximately 1km from the main campus.
3. The plaintiff negotiates with the two defendant unions in respect to terms and conditions of its employees, including employees of the university who are located in the Tyndall National Institute.
4. There has been an ongoing dispute for some time between members of the defendants union who are also employees of the plaintiff at the Tyndall National Institute and who have been seeking an increase of pay. It is fair to say that the dispute has been simmering for some time and was referred to the Labour Relations Commission, but no final agreement could be reached.
5. The central aspect of the issue that now arises is that the defendant unions organised a secret ballot of their members working in the Tyndall National Institute, and by a substantial majority the members voted for industrial action. While Members of both the defendant trade unions were also employed by the plaintiff outside of the Tyndall National Institute on the main campus site of UCC. They were not involved in any way in the secret ballot.
6. It is of some significance to point out that in respect of the secret ballot which referred to industrial action, the employment is described as UCC Tyndall and the location of the count was the Tyndall Institute.
7. Subsequently, on 22 nd April, 2015, the two defendant trade unions notified the plaintiff formally of the intention of both unions to initiate industrial action regarding the Tyndall pay dispute, and that pickets would be placed at the entrances to the employment on the following days, Thursday 30 th April, 2015 from 8.00am to 5.30pm, Wednesday 6 th and Thursday 7 th May, 2015 from 8.00am to 5.30pm, and Wednesday 13 th May, 2015, from 8.00am to 5.30pm.
8. It was indicated that the unions regretted the need to engage in this action but, however, given the current intransigence of management they found themselves with no other alternative.
9. Barry O'Brien, Director of Human Resources of the plaintiff, wrote to the defendants representatives indicating that the university was about to enter the examination season, and that it was not clear from the formal notice as given as to whether or not the reference to pickets being placed at the entrances to employment on the days specified referred to the Tyndall Building only, or to the UCC Campus, or both.
10. The letter sought an undertaking that the pickets would be confined to the entrance to the Tyndall National Institute Building only.
11. A reply was received later on 23 rd April, 2015, formally withdrawing the notice of industrial action and by a subsequent email on 23 rd April, 2015, the situation was clarified that the pickets on 1 st, 6 th and 7 th May were to be at the entrance to the Tyndall Institute only, but the picket proposed for Wednesday 13 th May (which at this stage is this coming Wednesday), will be placed at six of the twelve entrances to the main campus of the plaintiff university and would be from 7.00am in the morning until 5.30pm in the evening.
12. The notification is clear that it was the intention of both unions to initiate industrial action by withdrawal of labour and the placing of pickets regarding the Tyndall dispute, inter alia, at six entrances the University College Cork main campus.
13. Arthur Cox Solicitors on behalf of the plaintiff then queried the situation and expressed serious concern about the fact that examinations involving students would be taking place on Wednesday, 13 th May at various locations on the main campus and querying the ballot.
14. In an earlier circular to its members, shop stewards and committees, Bill Mulcahy, the first named defendants organiser in the Education Centre, circulated its members advising them that industrial action was to recommence in the Tyndall pay dispute.
15. It was also indicated in the letter that Mr. Mulcahy took the view that there was now no option but to reinstate the industrial action with pickets being placed at the Tyndall Institute and that given the hard-line approach of UCC management and the Department of Education and Skills, it was now necessary to escalate the industrial action to include picketing at UCC on Wednesday 13 th May, 2015, commencing at 7.00am and concluding at 5.30pm.
16. It was further indicated that union members at Tyndall regret having to escalate the action in this manner but, however, they were now in a desperate situation following fourteen months since the last pickets.
17. The second last paragraph of the communication states as follows:-
"We are asking all members to lend their support to the Tyndall staff on 13 th May, 2015. You solidarity will be deeply appreciated by your colleagues in Tyndall and they are committed to supporting you at any stage in the future should you so request."
18. The letter concluded by indicating that Mr. Mulcahy would be issuing further information to all members in the coming days and he once again thanked the union members for their support.
19. Subsequent to receipt of the correspondence from both defendant unions, the President of UCC wrote to all students regretting to have to inform them that the university had been served with notice of industrial action which has the potential to impact on the UCC community on Wednesday 13 th May.
20. The letter went on to state:-
"We are conscious that this is an extremely important and stressful time for you and we assure you that the university will take all necessary measures to ensure that examinations will proceed as planned."
21. There was then an email from Mark Stanton, President of the UCC Student Union to all pupils indicating that he had just received an email from President Murphy regarding the potential for industrial action on Wednesday, May 13 th.
22. The letter went on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HSE v O'Sullivan
...of Dunne J. in this matter. In circumstances where these proceedings have already generated a comprehensive judgment in the High Court ( [2015] IEHC 282, Unreported, High Court, Barr J., 27 April, 2021), a very thorough judgment in the Court of Appeal ( [2022] IECA 74, Unreported, Court of ......