81 / 328
COUNTY KERRY LAW SOCIETY
At the Annual General Meeting of the County
Kerry Law Society held at the Courthouse, Tralee,
on the 2nd December, 1961, the following officers
and committee were appointed :—
President,
Mr. Gerald Baily;
Vice-President,
Mr.
J. D. O'Connell;
Chairman,
Mr. Charles
J.
Downing ;
Secretary and Treasurer,
Mr. D. M. King ;
Committee,
Messrs. D. E. Browne, W. A. Crowley,
H. J. Downing, J. J. Grace, C. Healy, M. L.
O'Connell, J. J. O'Donnell, J. S. O'ReiUy and
D. Twomey.
THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY
OF NORTHERN IRELAND
The following are the officers for the year :—
President,
Mr. William J. Jefferson, Messrs. C. & H.
Jefferson, solicitors, 8/9 Donegall Square North,
Belfast,
i ;
Senior Vice-President,
Mr. Denis K.
McMillan, Messrs. White, McMillan & Wheeler,
solicitors, 30 Chicester Street, Belfast,
i ;
Junior
Vice-President,
Mr. W. Brian Rankin, Messrs.
Cleaver, Fulton & Rankin, solicitors, 62 Wellington
Place, Belfast, i.
The members nominated as extraordinary members
of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society of
Ireland are the President and the two Vice-Presidents
with Mr. Frederick H. Mullan £nd Mr. Charles
MacLaughlin.
LAW REFORM
Members interested in the subject of Law Reform
should note that the White Paper on Law Reform
issued by the Minister for Justice, Mr. Charles
Haughey, was published in full on page 4 of the
issue of
The Irish Times,
dated Tuesday, i6th January,
1962.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
Picketers, appeal dismissed—Constitutional right upheld
In a reserved judgment given on I3th December,
1961, the Supreme Court, Dublin, dismissed with
costs
the appeal of W. J. Fitzpatrick, general
secretary of the Irish Union of Distributive Workers
and Clerks, and 16 members of the clerical staff of
the Educational Company of Ireland, Ltd., and its
subsidiary company, Edward Hely, Ltd., from an
injunction given by the High Court to stop them
from picketing the company's premises at Talbot
Street and Beresford Lane, Dublin. The appeal had
been at hearing for nine days. The judgment was
a majority one given by Kingsmill-Moore, 0 Dalaigh
and Haugh, J. J. Maguire, C. J. and Lavery, J.,
dissented.
The companies had stated that no trade dispute
existed. The defendants contended that there was
a trade dispute because of the refusal of some of the
employees to join the union, and that any acts that
they had done had been done in furtherance of that
dispute.
Mr. Justice Budd had held
that, under the
Constitution, a citizen was free to join or not to join
an association or union as he pleased, and that the
companies had the duty of abstaining from interfer
ing with their employees' constitutional rights.
Therefore the action of the defendants was an
attempt to compel the plaintiffs to interfere with the
constitutional rights of others, and as such, could
not be supported by the Trade Disputes Act, 1906.
He took the view that the Trade Disputes Act, 1906,
afforded no defence to the defendants for their
action in watching and besetting, or picketing the
plaintiffs' premises.
The Chief Justice in his judgment said that this
case raised issues of far-reaching importance in the
field of industrial relations in this country. It arose
out of an action taken by the defendants, who were
workmen employed by the plaintiffs, to induce
fellow-workmen in the same employment to join
a trades union of which defendants were members.
The defendants were members of the Irish Union of
Distributive Workers and Clerks, and, having failed
to induce nine fellow-workmen to join the union
had, through their union, intimated to the plaintiffs
that they objected to work with men who were not
members of the union, and that unless these men
joined the union they would withdraw their labour.
When our Constitution was enacted it must have
been well known to most intelligent voters that the
trades unions had won recognition for their right
to use the weapon of collective bargaining, and the
right to withdraw the labour of their members and
peaceful picketing in furtherance of a legitimate
trade dispute.
He must say that it had come to him as a surprise
that it should be contended that our Constitution
had, by implication, withdrawn from the protection
of the Act a dispute of this nature to the extent that
peaceful picketing should not be employed to further
it. To his mind, the position was simple and clear.
The defendants were exercising the right which they
had of refusing to associate with workmen who were
not members of their union. In his view the judg
ment and order of the High Court should be reversed,
and this action dismissed.
Mr. Justice Lavery said that he agreed with the
conclusions which the Chief Justice had reached and
in essentials, for the reasons that the Chief Justice
had given.