The Supreme Court has concluded that an injunction granted by a lower court, which barred members of Unite the Union from committing to industrial action, was incorrectly conferred. This ruling was based on the understanding that fundamental Irish industrial relations legislation imposes a “strict barrier” against courts issuing injunctions limiting industrial action when proper legal protocols have been adhered to.
The judgement emerged from a case initiated in the High Court the previous year. In this case, H.A O’Neill Limited, a subsidiary of Jones Engineering Group, obtained an injunction prohibiting the union and three of its members from pursuing any industrial action against them based on a vote carried out by the union. The injunction was to remain until a comprehensive resolution of the dispute was reached.
Engaged in a disagreement with the union over restoring a travel stipend equivalent to an hour’s wage previously given to workers, the company, a provider of mechanical and engineering services to the construction industry, sought an injunction. The firm alleged that the industrial action, which involved positioning pickets at their business locations, was illegal and that a legitimate trade dispute did not exist between them and the union.
The company further purported that the ballot conducted by Unite among its members employed at H.A O’Neil violated the 1990 Industrial Relations Act. The company also suggested that both parties were bound by a sectoral employment order (SEO) which encompassed clauses for dispute resolution and no-strikes. The company maintained that no industrial action could take place until the dispute resolution clause was fully implemented.
However, the injunction was granted by Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan after the inaugural strike on March 10th, 2023. The union, represented by Eoin McCullough SC, opposed the injunction’s application in the High Court and appealed the order to the Supreme Court subsequently. The Supreme Court’s five-judge panel unanimously upheld the appeal by the union.
The judges pointed out that the injunction had been previously dismissed and the specified SEO was nullified by the courts in separate proceedings.
In his judgement, the Chief Justice clarified that the relevant section of the 1990 Act presents a “strict barrier” to the issuing of injunctions restricting industrial action when the conditions of the relevant section are satisfied. Mr Justice O’Donnell emphasised that this section should not be interpreted in a limited or restricted manner as it might “undermine the aim” of safeguarding unions and their members through legislation.
The Chief Justice highlighted that any injunction granted against the industrial actions conducted by certified trade unions should be adequately justified. This should take into account factors such as whether the union has given the employer a notice of not less than a week, and if the decision to strike was based on a majority vote. It is also essential to consider the potential need for more action to be taken by the union. Under these conditions, the Chief Justice argued that an injunction ought not to have been put into place.
Furthermore, he mentioned the protection provided by Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution which secures the liberty to create unions and associations. This should be viewed as an underpinning context when considering entitlements to engage in industrial strikes. Key to any such rights is the option of when and where to practice them, he further mentioned.
In agreement with the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hogan stated that the 1990 Act under Article 40.6.1 allows the Oireachtas to supervise union-related activities. It is important, he noted, that the courts don’t easily bypass or interfere with this right.
He stressed the need to safeguard the right to strike so as to give substance to the constitutional right to associate and create trade unions. Historically, he noted, insufficient attention has been given to this matter.
In the same vein, Mr Justice Brian Murray opined that when a court is contemplating on injunction applications of these sorts, a rudimentary evaluation of the claims is necessary. He elaborated that the scrutiny didn’t need to be intensive, but more than a superficial look was required to assess if the case was plausible.
He revealed that the court will revisit the issue later this month for the ultimate judgements.
For further analysis and discussion, the Inside Politics Podcast is suggested. They also recommend signing up for instant alerts to have important news, analytical pieces and commentary sent straight to your phone. WhatsApp users can follow The Irish Times to stay updated as well.