The Gazette 1976

January-February 1976

GAZETTE

causes, as a result of what he does, loss to another, even spitefully and maliciously, that other person has no remedy, no matter how great the loss, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to establish the essential ingredients of this tort—i.e. that (1) the named defendants, Whitty, Donegan and the ITGWU did know of the existence of the contracts and intended to pro- cure their breach. (2) These defendants did definitely and unequivocally persuade, induce or procure the plaintiffs to break their Contracts of Employment, with the inten- tion of breaching these contracts. (3) Those employed, so persuaded or induced, did in fact break their contracts of employment. (4) The breach of contract forming the subject of interference was the necessary consequence of breaches by the employees concerned of their Contracts of Employment. Accordingly Hamilton J found: (1) There was no conspiracy be- tween the defendants to injure the plaintiffs. (2) There was no breach of con- tract either by C.I.E. or by any of its employees who belonged to the ITGWU. The Port Manager of C.I.E. at Rosslare Harbour accepted the position and did not order his em- ployees who were members of the ITGWU to handle Opel cars. (3) There was no breach of con- tract by the Union itself — the ITGWU — since that Union had no contract with the plain- tiffs. The Union merely asked for their member's support in ensuring that no F.B.U. cars were to be imported. (4) Accordingly on 13th Novem- ber, 1975, there was no trade dispute involving the plaintiffs. On the facts submitted, Hamilton J. had on 19th November, granted an Interim Injunction effective until 26th November but this was not extended. On that date, Coun- sel for plaintiffs indicated that he wished to have the applica- tion for an Interlocutory Injunction treated as the hear- ing of the action, and defen- dants consented. All the employees of the plaintiffs had accepted the redundancy scheme proposed by them in June, 1975, and consequently were no longer in the employ- ment of the Company.

Negotiations took place between the plaintiffs and the shop stewards of the ATGWU. On 4th June, 1975, the plaintiffs wrote to all their assembly workers, who had been employed up to October, 1974, proposing a redundancy scheme, which was accepted. The plaintiffs wrote to all redundant workers, offering alternative em- ployment by General Motors in Tallaght, but not all applicant workers were employed. By letter of 10th July, 1975, to ATGWU the plaintiffs suggested a meeting to lift the ban of Opel cars. On 21st August, 1975, Mr. Browne, the Branch Secretary of the ATGWU, informed plaintiffs that the Union would consider lifting the ban, if the plaintiffs guaranteed to con- tinue employment of workers at 1965 level up to 1984, or continuity of employment in a diversification situation. On 10th October, 1975, the Minister for Industry and Com- merce issued to the plaintiffs a special licence for the importation of 655 Opel cars from then until 31st December, 1975. A contract was made between plaintiffs, C.I.E., and British Rail, for the importa- tion of Opel cars from Fishguard to Rosslare, and this could not be carried out because members of ITGWU would not handle these cars. Peterson J's dictum in White v. Reilly — (1921) 1 Ch.D. — is quoted to the effect that the Court should not in these cases consider whether the conduct of the em- ployers or workmen is considerate, wise, or expedient, but whether the act complained of is lawful or un- lawful. The question is whether any of the defendants have com- mitted the tort of interference with contractual relations. The claim of the plaintiffs is for: (1) An Injunction restraining Whitty, Donegan and the ITGWU from procuring any interference with the importa- tion and distribution of Opel Motor Cars. Injunction restraining Whitty, Donegan, and the ITGWU from procuring breaches of contract by C.I.E. and British Rail in the carriage and transport of Opel Motor Cars. Having quoted Lord Evershed, M.R. in Thompson v. Deacon — (1952) 2 All ER—to the effect that it was a well established principle of law that if a man, acting lawfully and in all respects within his rights, (2) An

RECENT IRISH CASES

A dispute involving the refusal by a trade union to import Opel Motor Cars can only be decided in a full Plenary hearing. The plaintiff was engaged in the assembly and distribution of Opel motor cars pursuant to a franchise granted by General Motors until October, 1974. Whitty is an employee of C.I.E. and is a shop steward of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union (ITGWU) in Rosslare Harbour. Donegan is a national official of the ITGWU. The Opel Assembly Plant was closed in October, 1974. The pro- posed closure was known before- hand and there were negotiations to relieve redundancies between ATGWU who represented the Car Assemblers, the Plaintiffs, and General Motors Overseas Corpora- tion. The negotiations were abor- tive, and when the assembly plant was closed, the workers occupied the factory in a sit-in, which lasted 18 weeks. The 4 Unions concerned in the Motor Industry, ATGWU, ITGWU, AGE & MOU and AUEW, met on 21st September, 1974, and passed a resolution to fight unem- ployment by all means at its dis- posal, and that importation of F.B.U. vehicles be banned; this was confirmed at an inter-Unior meet- ing on 5th October, 1974, and a ballot of all members was sub- sequently held confirming this. On the 2nd April, 1975, the Trade Union Advisory Body to the Motor Industry recommended that a ban be imposed on the importation of fully built Leyland and Opel cars. The Executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions subsequently sup- ported the Automobile Assembly Group of Unions in its efforts to protect the jobs of workers. The ITGWU notified each Section of its Docks branch of this decision on 11th April, 1975. The Assistant Branch Secretary of the ITGWU in Wexford notified Whitty in Rosslare, who duly notified the Port Manager of C.I.E. in Rosslare Harbour. On 13th January, 1975, the plain- tiffs informed their employers that they had received a letter from General Motors informing them of various job opportunities which would be occurring shortly in their plant in Tallaght. This pool would be chosen from men formerly em- ployed by the plaintiffs and by McCairns. The sit-in of employees in the plaintiff's factory in Rings- end ended in February, 1975.