57 / 262
UNREPORTED IRISH CASES
Separate trade union entitled to picket to gain recog-
nition despite contract between employers and
other unions that all employees in the firm would
belong exclusively to those unions.
The factory manufacturing hypodermic syringes
opened in Dunlaoghaire in 1969. In July 1970 an agree-
ment was concluded between the company, the ITGWU
and Nat. Eng. and Elect. T.U. stating that all workers
save those in a managerial or clerical capacity must
belong in the case of an unskilled worker, to ITGWU,
and, in the case of a skilled worker, to NEETU. All the
defendants, save Callaghan, District Secretary of Amal-
gamated Union of Engineering Foundry Workers,
agreed to join one of these Unions, although they had
been members of A.U.E.F.U. up to this. The five defen-
dants who had been members of A.U.E.F.U. refused to
join N.E.E.T.U. The company were informed by
Callaghan in July 1970 that one of the members of
A.U.E.F.U. had been appointed shop steward but the
company would not recognise this. Callaghan then
threatened a strike of A.U.E.F.U. members, and refused
to obey the Disputes Committee of the Trade Union
Congress, who advised him to withdraw the strike
notice. The plaintiffs adopted a wait-and-see attitude.
Henchy J.
granted an interim injunction to restrain
picketing until August 12. On August 19
Pringle J.
refused an interlocutory injunction. On appeal to the
Supreme Court on September 7 it was agreed by con-
sent that no further order be made pending the trial
of the action, and that picketing would be discontinued
meantime. The trial was held before
McLoughlin J.
in November 1970.
McLoughlin J.
granted a perpetual injunction re-
straining the defendants from picketing plaintiffs' prem-
ises, on the ground that there was no trade dispute.
The following matters were determined on appeal.
(1) Is a recognition dispute capable of being a trade
dispute?
Even in
E.I. Co. v. Kennedy
(1968) I.R.—this had
not been decided up to then by the Irish Courts.
Walsh J.
in delivering the majority judgment of
the Court answered this question—"Yes". If workmen
designate their trade union to be their representatives
in any negotiations on questions of conditions of em-
ployment, whether or not there is currently negotiations
of a dispute, they are doing something which is connec-
ted with their employment. If therefore an employer
refuses to treat with their designated representative,
then that refusal can constitute a trade dispute con-
nected with his employment within Section 5 of the
Trade Dispute Act, 1906. Does this principle extend
where the particular trade union is not expressly or
completely the representative of the workmen con-
cerned? The suggestion that the condition as to joining
N.E.E.T.U. was a condition precedent as to the con-
tract of employment cannot be maintained, as the
workers concerned were employed. There was merely a
subsequent agreement that the workers concerned would
transfer their membership to the other union which was
a term of their employment. The situation then was that
the workers concerned wished to repudiate a term of
their employment, and endeavoured to persuade the
plaintiffs to waive it. Every refusal on the part of a
workman to work in accordance with the terms of his
contract is itself a breach of contract.
Henchy
J.
in delivering the principal
minority judg-
ment,
emphasised that the five defendant employees had
been informed by an official of the company, that they
would have to be members of either the I.T.G.W.U. or
NEETU, and that they freely signed a document that
they would do so. When they were eventually informed
that their employment was conditional on their joining
the relevant union, the reply was a peremptory seven
day strike, at thg expiration of which pickets were
placed on the premises. In effect, the defendants were
saying to the company: "Break your contract with
I.T.G.W.U. and N.E.E.T.U., and employ us who are
members of A.U.E.F.W." If the facts fall within the
statutory definition of a trade dispute then the person
relying on the trade dispute is entitled to do so. Section
5 (3) of the Act of 1906 clearly defines a trade dispute :
once a dispute is between the parties specified and is
connected with any of the matters specified, then it
ranks as a trade dispute. In this case, the defendants
come within the statutory definition of "workmen",
they fell into dispute with their employers : the dispute
is connected with the terms of their employment. There-
fore the plaintiffs are entitled to contend
that a statu-
tory dispute does exist.
(2) Is the picketing done by the defendants in further-
ance of this trade dispute lawful?
Henchy J.,
in delivering the principal minority judg-
ment, emphasised that, if the picketing is done for a
purpose other than peacefully obtaining or communi-
cating information, or of peacefully persuading a person
to abstain from work, under Section 2 of the Act of
1906, then this Section cannot grant immunity to pick-
eters. The main purpose of the picketing in this case
was to induce the company to break its contract with
I.T.G.W.U. and N.E.E.T.U. by employing persons other
than the members of those unions.
One of the cases, which constitutes a necessary ingre-
dient of an actionable interference with contractual
rights is thus stated by Salmond,
Law of Torts,
fifteenth
edition, at p. 498 : "When a third party intentionally
and without justification interfered with the contract
between two parties the defendants thus must be
credited with knowledge that if the picketing were
successful in inducing the company to break its contract,
the company would then be liable for damages for
breach of contract, or be subjected to an injunction
restraining them from employing persons other than
members of I.T.G.W.U. or N.E.E.T.U. The picketing
would therefore be unlawful at Common Law, and
would be outside the protection not only of Section 2
but also of Section 3 of the Act of 1906."
(3) Is the strike in the present case a breach of con-
tract?
The plaintiffs submit it is, and is therefore unlawful.
Walsh J.
in delivering the majority decision of the
Court, said that: Undoubtedly, even if technically
56