Judge orders halt to union picketing at building site

The High Court has granted an injunction restraining the Building and Allied Trades Union and two of its members from picketing a housing development in Swords, Co Dublin.

The dispute, which the court heard has paralysed work for almost a month on the site at Bunbury Gate, arises from the controversial practice in the construction industry of engaging subcontractors to do blocklaying work rather than employing blocklayers directly.

This practice, BATU contends, deprives workers of better rates of pay and conditions of employment, including a better health and safety regime.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly granted Daru Blocklaying Ltd, whose parent company Masonfield Ltd, had contracted with Kingscroft Developments Ltd to carry out blocklaying work at the Swords site, an interlocutory order (one continuing until the trial of the action) restraining BATU, Mr Barry McCormack and Mr Vincent Conroy from watching, besetting or picketing the site. He also granted an order restraining the defendants from interfering with the commercial business of the plaintiffs.

The judge went on to make directions aimed at having the full proceedings heard on July 24th.

The judge found there was a serious issue to be tried between the sides in relation to the basis on which Mr McCormack and Mr Conroy were engaged to carry out blocklaying work on the site and the legal consequences of that.

Mr McCormack, who secured work for himself and a gang of other blocklayers, said he assumed he would be employed on a PAYE basis while Mr Michael Lynch, managing director of Daru, said he was given no documents suggesting the blocklayers intended to be employees of Daru.

After an exchange of correspondence between BATU and Daru, a secret ballot was carried out by BATU and notice of industrial action was served. A picket was placed on June 12th. BATU accepted there may have been up to nine persons on the picket on that date but said the numbers were smaller afterwards.

The judge said there were fair issues to be tried relating to the conduct of the picket, the status of registered agreements relating to the engagement of workers in the construction industry and the conduct of disputes, and whether there were breaches of these agreements.

The judge said he was satisfied the picketing had effectively stopped all work on the site and that Daru had incurred very substantial losses as a result. He believed the damages being suffered were irreparable because they were not just losses on the present contract but Daru's commercial credibility was also being threatened.

Given the losses being incurred and that damages would be an adequate remedy for the defendants should they win the full action, he said the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

However, he had also to consider provisions of the Industrial Relations Act which restrained the granting of an injunction where a secret ballot was held in accordance with the rules of a trade union, that ballot favoured the industrial action and not less than one week's notice had been given of the proposed action. All those whom the union believed would be participating in the industrial action should be balloted.

In this case, BATU said it conducted a ballot in accordance with its rules, the three members balloted unanimously voted for industrial action and more than one week's notice of that action was given.

While only three persons were balloted, up to nine picketed on the first day, the judge said. BATU was obliged to ensure that all members whom the union reasonably believed would be called upon to join the action would be balloted.