The Gazette 1980

GAZETTE

DECEMBER1980

taking of samples by a veterinary surgeon or by an officer of the Minister of Agriculture authorised to take samples. At the hearing in the District Court the District Justice was satisfied that the Defendant had failed to make an eligible animal available for a brucellosis test which was carried out by a Mr. O'Flaherty, who, when called to give evidence, stated that he was a veterinary surgeon. He was not questioned about this assertion nor was it challenged nor was any evidence to the contrary adduced by the Defendant. At the conclusion of the prosecution's case, counsel for the Defendant contended that a mere statement by the witness that he was a veterinary surgeon was insufficient proof, having regard to the terms of the Regulations and the Act applicable, of the fact that he was a veterinary surgeon within the meaning of the Act, nor was there any evidence that he was an officer of the Minister of Agriculture authorised to carry out the test. Consequently, the Defendant contended that the prosecution had failed in an essential proof. The District Justice then stated a case, he being satisfied, that: (i) the case made out against the Defendant was that the requisite sample was taken by a veterinary surgeon within the meaning of the Act, and, (ii) the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this respect was Mr. O'Flaherty's statement that he was a veterinary surgeon. He sought the opinion of the High Court, as follows: (a) Was it necessary for the prosecution to prove that the necessary test was carried out by a person lawfully qualified to practice veterinary surgery in the State? (b) Was Mr. O'Flaherty's evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case that he was a veterinary surgeon? (3) Was Mr. O'Flaherty's evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case that he was lawfully qualified to practice veterinary surgery in the State? The Court found that if Mr. O'Flharty was not a veterinary surgeon he would have commited an

offence when stating under Oath that he was a Veterinary Surgeon. There was a presumption against the commission of crime. This presumption was rebuttable. The Defendant did not challenge Mr. O'Flaherty as to his qualifications nor did he adduce evidence to the contrary. The evidence by Mr. O'Flahery that he was a veterinary surgeon was prima facie proof of that fact. Held (per Finiay J.) in answer to the specific questions submitted: (a) In the absence of proof of a person authorised by the Minister under the Regulations; Yes.

that there was any business association between the Plaintiffs premises in Inchicore and the prem- ises on Malahide Road. The Plaintiff brought proceedings against the employee Defendants for an inter- locutory injunction to restrain the picketing of her own premises in Inchicore on the grounds that there there was no trade dispute between the employees of the deceased publican and the deceased's suc- cessors in title. "It appears to me to be clear that there is a trade dispute between the employees of the late (de- ceased) and his successors in title whether the claim by the em- ployees is sustainable under their contracts of employment or is reasonable on other grounds or not, A dispute does not cease to be a trade dispute within the meaning of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 merely because the claim by the employees appears to be unreasonable. A "trade dis- pute" within the meaning of the Act is "any dispute between employers and workmen" . . . which is "connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any person". This dispute is between employers and workmen and is connected with the terms of the employment of the em- ployees of the late (deceased). The employees are claiming that, in the licensed trade, on the ter- mination of employment em- ployees are entitled to substan- tially more than the statutory re- dundancy payments. This claim may or may not be correct, but it appears to me that it constitutes a trade dispute within the meaning of the Act". 2. However, that as there was not at any time anv business con- nection between the Inchicore premises of the Plaintiff and the Malahide Road premises of the deceased and that the Plaintiff had not at any time carried on business in the Malahide Road premises of the deceased or Held: (per McWilliam J.) 1. That there was a trade dispute between the employees of the de- ceased publican and his su- cessors in title:

(b) Yes. (c) Yes.

The Minister of Agriculture v. John Coneaimon — High Court (per Finlay, J.) 14 April 1980 — unreported.

LABOUR LÁW — TRADE DISPUTES

Trade Disputes Act 1906 — In order to justify the picketing of a person's premises there must be a sufficiently discernible and close connection between that premises and the trade dispute. Two licensed premises pick- eted in pursuance of a claim of re- dundancy payments in excess of the statutory entitlement. One of the premises belonging to a personal rep- resentative entitled to a small share in the residue of the estate. The Plaintiff, who was the owner of a licensed premises in Inchicore, Dublin, was one of the executors and was entitled to one-twelfth share of the residuary estate of a deceased publican who had a licensed prem- ises on Malahide Road, Dublin. It was necessary to sell the premises on Malahide Road for the purpose of the administration of the estate of the deceased and all the employees of the Malahide Road premises were given notice and paid the full redundancy payment to which they were entitled, but the employees also claimed they were entitled to further payments under the heading of "Disturbance Claims Payments", which they claimed was the custom in the licensed trade. It was not claimed