GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER 1981
of association if in reality the freedom of action or
choice which remains available to him is either non
existent or so reduced as to be of no practical
value".
12
In the light of this statement the question may properly be
asked whether the Trade Union Act, 1971, which makes it
very difficult, in reality, to form a new trade union in
Ireland, infringes Article II of the Convention. A positive
answer to this question would have very serious
consequences for the legislative policy of tackling the
problem of multiplicity of unions by discouraging the
creation of new unions.
The Court then observed that, read in the light of
Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, one of the purposes
of freedom of association is the protection of personal
opinion, viz. freedom of thought, conscience, religion.
Consequently any attempts to compel someone to join an
association contrary to his convictions violate Article 11.
Finally the Court turned to consider whether the
legislation in this case was protected by Article 11, para.
2 of the Convention. (It may be noted that this is the first
occasion on which this paragraph has been considered in
detail by the Court). Under the terms of paragraph 2, an
interference with freedom of association would be justified
if
(a) it was "prescribed by law",
(b) it had an aim or aims that is or are legitimate
under that paragraph, and
(c) it is "necessary in a democratic society" for the
aforesaid aim or aims.
The Court did not find it necessary to consider the first
two of these three conditions but instead focussed on
whether the interference with freedom of association,
contained in T.U.L.R.A. 1974 as amended by the 1976
Act, was "necessary in a democratic society" in order to
attain the advantages inherent in the closed shop system,
for example, the fostering of good industrial relations,
avoiding inter-union disputes, counter-acting the
inequality of bargaining power, etc. The Court re-stated a
number of principles relevant to the assessment of the
"necessity" of a given measure which it had first
enunciated in the
Handyside
case.
13
First, "necessary"
cannot be construed as broadly as "useful" or
"desirable", and so the fact that the closed shop
agreement might have produced certain advantages is not
conclusive of the issue. Secondly, because pluralism,
tolerance and broadmindness are characteristics of a
democratic society, a balance has to be struck between
the dominant position of a majority, and the position of
minorities. Consequently the fact that the applicants were
in a minority was again not conclusive of the question.
Lastly, any restrictions imposed on a Convention right
have to be "proportionate to the legitimate aim
pursued".
14
Applying these principles to the facts of this
particular case, the Court concluded that the provisions
of T.U.L.R.A. 1974 as amended by the 1976 Act,
relating to the closed shop, were not necessary for the
protection of the interests of union members and that the
detriment suffered by the applicants was not
proportionate to the aims pursued.
The Implications of these Decisions:
The decisions of the Court of Human Rights in the
Le
Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere
case, and in the
Young, James and Webster
(i.e. "British Rail") case, have
added greatly to our knowledge of the effect of Article 1 1
of the Convention. In particular they afford us a better
insight into the protection afforded to the "negative
freedom of association" by the Convention.
A number of important points emerge from these
cases:
(a) Article 11 does not protect the right of the
individual not to have to join a "public law institution."
Therefore members of the Professions can lawfully be
compelled to register with, and be subject to the discipline
of, professional bodies established by statute. However
they cannot be prevented from forming or joining other
professional associations, in addition to the appropriate
public law institution. Trade unionists may, no doubt,
find it difficult to understand why the negative freedom of
association should apply to trade unions but not to public
law institutions. In this respect, it is interesting to note
that the United States Supreme Court has refused to
distinguish between public law institutions and trade
unions. In the case of
Railway Employees' Dept., A.F.L.
v. Hanson,
15
which concerned the constitutionality of a
legislative provision authorising the conclusion of union
shop agreements, Douglas J., delivering the judgment of
the Court, stated that in such a case
"there is no more an infringement or impairment of
First Amendment rights than there would be in the
, case of a lawyer who by state law is required to be a
member of an integrated bar".
16
(b) It would appear that Article 11 does afford limited
protection to the "negative freedom of association",
though the remarks of the Court in the
British Rail
case
were very cautious on this point. The decision in that case
ROYAL COLLEGE OF
SURGEONS IN
IRELAND
The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland is a
privately owned Institution founded in 1784. It
has responsibility for post-graduate education of
surgeons, radiologists, anaesthetists, dentists and
nurses. The College manages an International
Medical School for the training of doctors, many
of whom come from Third World countries where
there is a great demand and need for doctors.
Research in the College includes work on cancer,
thrombosis, high blood pressure, heart and blood
vessel disease, blindness, mental handicap, birth
dcfects and many other human ailments. The
College being an independent institution is
financed largely through gifts and donations. Your
donation, covenant or legacy, will help to keep the
College in the forefront of medical research and
medical education. The College is officially recog
nised as a Charity by the Revenue Commis
sioners. All contributions will be gratefully re
ceived.
Enquiries to:
The Registrar, Royal College of Surgeons in
Ireland, St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2.
2 3 9




