The Gazette 1972

ment which compelled employers to ensure that part- tune bar waiters weie memoers ol tne union. Union oojects to part-tune waitresses xn i^zi one oi the plaintiils employed bar waitresses on a part-time basis to serve customers at tables in the lounges and other publicans had now done this, They wonted two or three nights a week irom seven o'clock until closing time. INone ol them was a member of the union. While there were some female members of the union who were employed in the grocery and provision busi- ness, employment in licensed premises was, until 1967, confined to males and the union had never agreed to the employment of females—other than cleaners—in any licensed premises where members of the union worked. In May 1971 the union wrote to one of the plaintiffs ojecting to the employment of female lounge staff, stating there was no provision in the agreement "for the employment of such labour". On October 1st the union threatened that their members would withdraw their labour and picket the premises in furtherance of a trade dispute, and, although the matter was referred to the Labour Court, agreement was not reached. The union then stated that the premises would be picketed if an undertaking was not given to carry out the agreement which, they maintained, prevented the employment of female labour. Injunction granted for constitutional breach of equality before the law On November 19th the High Court granted an interim injunction to the plaintiffs restraining picketing and the question whether an injunction should be granted until the trial was by consent, adjourned until January 25th, when it was debated. The plaintiffs' first contention on that occasion, said Mr. Justice Kenny, was that the objection by the union to the employment of bar waitresses was based, not on any suggestion that they were unsuitable for the work, but solely because they were female, that this was a breach of the constitutional right of equality before the law, and also that the picket was designed to compel the plaintiffs to infringet hat right which each of the bar waitresses had. The plaintiffs also contended that each of the wait- resses had a constitutional right to earn her livelihood without discrimination on the ground of sex. The defendants' principal submissions were that the employment of bar waitresses was a breach of the agree- ment of 1968, that the right of equality before the law had not been infringed and that the Constitution did not create a rigth to earn a livelihood without distinc- tion on the ground of sex. Prohibition of employment on ground of sex unconsti- tutional Article 40 of the Constitution reads : "All citizens as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to difference of capacity, physical and moral and of social function." Mr. Justice Kenny said that this article was not a guarantee that all citizens shall be treated by the law as equal for all purposes but one that they shall, as

human persons, be held equal before the law. It related to their essential attributes as persons, those features which made them human beings. In his opinion, it had nothing to do with their trading activities or with the conditions on which they were employed. He said that a policy or general rule under which anyone sought 'to prevent an employer from employing men or women on the ground of sex only was prohi- bited by the Constitution. A demand that women should not be employed at all in any activity solely because they were women—and not because the work was un- suitable for them or too difficult or too dangerous—was a breach of that right. "The purpose of the threat of the picket is to compel the employers to dismiss the bar waitresses solely because they are women and this is a breach of their consti- tutional rights." He did not think that the use of the word "bar waiter" in the 1968 agreement necessarily implied that men only should be employed in that position. He thought the plaintiffs had established that they had a reasonable prospect of success in their contention that the threat of the picket was an attempt to coerce them into infringing one of the rights of their employees and that the agreement did not preclude them from relying on this. [Prendergast and Walsh v I.N.U.V.G.A.T.A.; Kenny J.; unreported; 7th March 1972.] Irish Press (8th March 1972) Judge Critical of Union Action against Newspaper for Contempt of Court The Electricians and Plumbers Union was criticised by a High Court Judge yesterday for taking legal action over a mistake in a newspaper article before bringing it to the attention of the editor. Mr. Justice Foster said the mistake, in the communist newspaper Morning Star , was unlikely to prejudice the union in its defence of two pending Court actions brought by a Glasgow member. He dismissed the union's claim that the article was in contempt of Court. The newspaper's editor, Mr. George Matthews, and assistant editor, Mr. William Wainwright, who admitted an inaccuracy but denied contempt, were awarded their costs. » The union, the Electrical, Electronic and Telecom- munications Union-Plumbing Trades Union, did not press its original application for an order to imprison the two men, but left it to the Judge to decide a penalty. The Judge said such a procedure, where there was no real case, for committal, was a waste of the Court's time. In his reserved judgment, he said: "I find it very curious that the editor of the Morning Star was not informed by the union of the mistake and asked to correct it before these proceedings were ever brought. The mistake in the article was, of course, un- fortunate, but in the absence of any malice on the part of the editor (and none has been suggested) I cannot conceive that the trial of the action can be affected in any way." The Guardian (26th February 1972)

92