The Gazette 1974

UNREPORTED IRISH CASES

Interlocutory injunction against engineers.

Mr. Justice Kenny held in the High Court in Dublin

Hat there was no trade dispute between the Amalga-

mated Union of Engineering Workers and Tipperary

^°uth Riding) County Council, but that there was

between the union and the City and County

Managers' Association.

He made the finding when he granted an interlocu-

y injunction, effective until further order, to the

Y>uncil restraining sixteen engineers, who are members

He union, from picketing any waterworks, reservoirs

any premises owned, occupied or used by the

°uncil.

Earlier this month the Court granted the Council a

emporary injunction after being told that picketing

taken place as a result of a recognition dispute

etween the union who were endeavouring to have

^emselves represented as on the Staff Panel and the

^ t y and County Managers' Association.

Workers refused to pass pickets

Other grades of workers employed by the Council had

Housed to pass the pickets and it had left areas of

be county without water and domestic refuse services.

Mr. Gerard Clarke, S.C., for the County Council,

Pplying for an interlocutory injunction against the

ngineers, said that the action by the defendants had

paused serious interference with the services adminis-

ed by the Council. The interference with the water

Pply to domestic consumers and farm users in ex-

Nsive areas was of tremendous importance and carried

grave threat to the users.

Ehe picketing began on May 1 and continued until

of the injunction was served. He said it was clear

Hrn a letter written by the union and sent to the

ounty Manager (South Riding) Mr. Hayes on April

that the purpose and intention of the picketing was

pursuance of a recognition dispute with the City

County Managers' Association.

dispute claim

, It was the contention of the Council that they in fact

d no dispute with these defendants and the nature

He contest that was alleged to exist was something

hich was not within the power of the Council to do

ything about.

There was no trade dispute between the parties, he

H It was also his clients' contention that the em-

F i o y

e r s

and workers—the Council and the engineers—

j®re not employers and workers as defined in the Trades

Pute Act, 1906 in as much as they were not employed

Hade or industry.

Mr. Clarke said that when the injunction order was

aft;

Ved a l o n

w i t h t h e

Council's affidavits a replying

Hdavit was lodged on behalf of the defendants. From

affidavit it seemed to him that there was now an

t to bring in some other matter other than the

°gnition dispute.

^bion lodges claim for salary increases

Michael Murphy, engineer, of Clonmel, in an

Hdavit made on behalf of all the defendants,

a i d

that in March, 1972, the union to which

the vast majority of engineers employed by Local

Authorities in Ireland belonged, lodged a claim for

increases in salary and also for the establishment of

scales of long service increments and other matters

touching their employment, with the County and City

Managers Association.

The claim was made on behalf of all engineers who

were members of the union and were employed by

Local Authorities.

Negotiations

A reply was received from the Chief Officer of the

Local Government Negotiations Board to the effect

that negotiations in regard to increases were in progress

between that Board and organisations representing en-

gineers, and further that through the scheme of concilia-

tion and arbitration for Local Authority Officers, re-

presentations could only be entertained by Local

Authorities through the Staff Panel and that if the

A.U.E.W. wished to participate in negotiations with the

Local Authorities the first step was to seek member-

ship of the Staff Panel.

The union, he continued, applied for representation

on the Staff Panel but the Panel would not agree to

the admission of the union.

Referring to the affidavit sworn by the Tipperary

County Manager (South Riding), Mr. Robert N.

Hayes, Mr. Murphy stated that it was not correct to

say that no trade dispute existed between the defen-

dants or their union and the County Council. The

defendants wished to negotiate the terms and condi-

tions of their employment with the Council through

their union.

While it might be correct to state that the Council

had no power to resolve differences between the union

and such other unions as might wish to prevent it

having representation on the Staff Panel, it was within

the Council's power to resolve the dispute which existed

between the defendants as employees and the Council

as employers.

Union did not act hastily

He added that the union had not, by any standard

been precipitate.

The union were induced to cease industrial action in

the confident expectation that the problem would be

speedily resolved. The position had not been resolved

so that the union had no alternative but to

resume

industrial action.

Mr. Edward Comyn, for the defendants, said his case

rested on the contention that the City and County

Managers'

Association were employers and he submitted

that there was clear evidence of a trade dispute between

the council and the engineers.

During the course of the hearing a letter was read

in which it was stated that Mr. Hayes, the county

manager, had invited representatives of the men's

union to talks on May 30

Mr. Justice Kenny said the first question to be

answered was whether a recognition dispute between

the union and the City and County Managers' Associa-

tion was a trade dispute. It was perfectly clear that it

was not; it was the various County Councils who were

161