93 / 294
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