222 / 274
GAZETTE
January-February 1976
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.
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.
(2) An
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,
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.