SIPTU won a major victory in the Supreme Court yesterday when it overturned a High Court judgment in favour of a transport company following a bitter 22month strike by some of its drivers. The court found it had been a bona fide dispute.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said if there was to be one lesson from the dispute involving SIPTU and Nolan Transport (Oaklands) Limited, it was that the requirements of a proper trade union ballot should always be observed.
In December 1994, SIPTU was ordered by the High Court to pay more than £1.3 million in damages and costs to Nolan Transport (Oaklands) Ltd, New Ross, Co Wexford. The company had instituted proceedings against the union, an official and two truck drivers.
The High Court found there was no bona fide trade dispute and restrained the defendants from picketing or engaging in industrial action against the company and from interfering with it in the lawful conduct of its business.
In the Supreme Court yesterday, the injunctions were discharged and the court ruled the dispute was a bona fide one. The case is to come up again on June 23rd next to discuss what final orders should be made in relation to damages and costs.
Giving the main judgement, Mr Justice Murphy said the conclusion that a trade dispute existed and that the statutory immunities were available to the applicants meant the High Court judgement could not be upheld. The injunctions must be discharged.
Whether any finding of wrongdoing by any of the defendants or any part of the award against them could be sustained was a matter on which the parties must be heard before a final order could be made.
The High Court concluded that a substantial loss in the turnover of the company's dry freight sector resulted from the activities of the appellants in the prosecution of their industrial action. It also held damage had been caused to the company by defamation and malicious falsehoods by the appellants.
It awarded £601,000 damages, made up of £400,000 for loss of profits; £176,000 for additional fuel costs; and £25,000 for defamation and malicious falsehoods. Costs were estimated at £700,000.
Agreeing with the main 39-page judgement delivered by Mr Justice Murphy, the presiding judge, Mr Justice O'Flaherty, said he was afraid both employers and striking employees had conducted themselves in a manner best calculated to bring about the maximum degree of misunderstanding as to their respective positions. Any form of conciliation, arbitration or dispute was zealously avoided.
The finding that the union was conducting affairs with the sole purpose or motive to get a foothold in the company and unionise the whole workforce could not stand. If that had been the union's motive, it went about it in the worst way possible.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said on reading through the sorry saga unveiled in the papers he could not help but think he was living in another era, at about the turn of the century. "We have surely advanced from the culture that then prevailed," he added.
Unions were now powerful bodies, with highly trained professional staff. The days of the "class struggle" should be regarded as long gone. On the other hand, employers had an obligation to accord trade unions a measure of respect, representing as they did the rights of the workers.
He continued: "An unfortunate aspect of the present case is that the employers appear to have approached it on the basis that either all the workers joined the trade union or none of them joined and that the decision was to be made by the majority of the workers. But the constitutional right of each worker to join or not to join a trade union is well established in Irish law.
"No worker can be forced to join a union against his will and likewise no worker can be denied his right to join a union which is prepared to accept him. These are matters of constitutional right and are not capable of being resolved by a majority vote unless all workers have freely agreed to have ` the said matter resolved."
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said the ballot in the present case, whether it was rigged or not, was certainly "something of a shambles".
The big fault was that there was no impartial person to make sure a proper ballot was held with a due sense of decorum and correctness.
If there was a lesson that could be learned from this litigation, it was surely that the requirements for a proper ballot should always be observed. In any case where a secret ballot was required, there should be correct ballot papers with the issue set forth clearly. Ideally, an independent person should be brought in to supervise their whole operation.
The essential position was that there was a trade dispute and those engaged in it were protected and the union had its statutory immunity from suit. Nonetheless, the irregular ballot led to a lot of trouble. Many days were spent on it in the High Court and this would have to be dealt with in deciding on the proper order that should be made on costs.
Mr Justice Murphy said he found himself in disagreement with the High Court judge as to the inferences he drew in relation to the motivation and purpose of SIPTU and the legal principles applicable where industrial action was undertaken with a view to achieving more than one objective.
The trial judge had adverted to a number of factors including the speed with which events unfolded; absence of proper consultation for the purpose of considering industrial action; publication of slanted and dishonest communication by union officials; exaggerated statements as to the number of drivers who had joined the union; and failure of previous efforts to organise the union in the company.
These were the factors which the judge concluded supported the allegation that the real purpose of the union's actions was to represent the entire workforce. Mr Justice Murphy said he did not agree those factors would justify the inference that a union was attempting or would attempt to institute industrial action for the purpose of coercing an employer and its employees into a closed shop agreement.
He said if a bona fide dispute did exist between an employer and workers, some of whom happened to be members of a union, the union was entitled within the constitution and the law to support its members who were in dispute.
That in doing this it may be partly motivated by the aim of impressing its members and other workers and enhancing its own reputation and membership appeared to be irrelevant as long as it acted within the law and did not attempt to infringe the constitutional right of each worker to join or not to join a union as he himself thought best.
If followed that the appellants were entitled to the statutory immunities conferred on those engaged in activities in furtherance of a trade dispute, save insofar as those privileges were removed or restricted by the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
He would readily accept that any trade union would wish to expand its membership. But he would be very slow to infer that a trade union, in the present state of the law, would attempt to impose a closed shop.
Mrs Justice Denham, Mr Justice Barrington and Mr Justice Lynch agreed.