The Gazette 1961 - 64

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.