Vol. 407 No. 5
20 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Labour if he intends to introduce any amendments to the Industrial Relations Act, 1989, in the light of the experience of employees of a company (details supplied) in Dublin 11 where the employers sought and received a High Court injunction which restricted the employees' ability to pursue their dispute and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The company involved in this dispute sought a High Court injunction in February last to prevent the picketing of its premises and also to restrain the union from inducing its members in other employments to breach commercial contracts by refusing to handle the company's products. The High Court found the picket to be lawful but granted an interlocutory injunction against the inducement. I understand that the unions concerned may test the issue in a full hearing of the High Court.
The Industrial Relations Act, 1990 did not change the law in relation to breaches of commercial contracts and an injunction along the lines obtained in this case could have been obtained prior to the enactment of the Act. In 1981 the Supreme Court granted an injunction to prevent the type of action in the Talbot case and in considering such applications the courts will always have to take into account the rights and obligations of all the parties involved.
It is not my intention to amend the Industrial Relations Act as it is my belief that it represents a balance, taking account of the rights and interests of both employers and trade unions. To extend the Act to cover the inducement of breaches of commercial contracts would in my view be inappropriate and could place the immunities in the legislation in danger of being found to be unconstitutional.
All Members of this House, even Deputy Deasy, would accept that this was a just dispute in that it related to women workers who were paid £1.50 per hour being replaced by young male workers.
It was slightly worse. The women were earning £2.50 and were replaced by young people earning £1.50.
I thank the Minister for the correction. He is absolutely right. The Minister did not pull punches in dealing with the matter in the House. The dispute was rendered ineffectual by the securing of the interlocutory injunction to which the Minister refers. While it is correct to say that it could have been secured under the old legislation, that was very rarely done. The Talbot case was an exception. It is regrettable that this legitimate trade dispute involving workers who were being paid in such a miserly fashion was rendered ineffective. It is an area where the new law tilts in favour of the employer.
We will be keeping the Act under review in the early months. The 1981 Talbot case was used in quite a number of instances. The court in this case did not prevent the women from picketing their work premises. It stopped them disrupting the employer in distributing his goods to other premises.
Thereby making the dispute ineffective.
Certainly making it more difficult. I do not want to go into all the details but the employer was working from a number of other centres and had some people working for him in individual houses. It is not over yet and could end up again in the court.
