H.A. O’Neil Limited

Unite the Union
Patrick James Goold
William Mangan
Damian Jones

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court was wrong to grant an injunction restraining members of ‘Unite the Union’ from taking industrial action. The court found that the key legislation that governs industrial relations in Ireland provides an “absolute bar” to courts granting injunctions restraining industrial action where the correct legal procedures have been followed.

The company H.A. O’Neil Limited, which provides mechanical and engineering services for the construction sector, and the union, were in dispute over a demand for the restoration of a travel allowance of one hour’s pay that had previously been paid to employees. In seeking the injunction, the firm claimed the industrial action, which included the placing of pickets at sites where it conducts its business, was unlawful and argued a valid trade dispute did not exist between it and the union.

It also claimed Unite’s ballot of its members employed at H A O’Neil breached the 1990 Industrial Relations Act. It further claimed that the parties were bound by the terms of a sectoral employment order (SEO) which contained a dispute resolution and no-strike clauses. No industrial action could be taken until the dispute resolution clause had been exhausted, it alleged.

The injunction was granted by the High Court, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan following the first strike on March 10th, 2023. The union, represented by Eoin McCullough SC, opposed the injunction application before the High Court and appealed the order to the Supreme Court.

A five-judge Supreme Court unanimously allowed the union’s appeal. The judges noted that the injunction was previously discharged and the particular SEO was quashed by the courts in separate proceedings.

In his judgement the Chief Justice said the relevant section of the 1990 Act provides an “absolute bar” to the granting of an injunction restraining the industrial action where the conditions of the relevant section are met. Mr Justice O’Donnell said the section should not be interpreted narrowly or restrictively as this would “defeat the purpose” of legislation to protect unions and their members.

He added that here the union established that industrial action was being pursued by a registered union, that the outcome of the ballot favoured taking action, and that no less than a week’s notice was given to the employer. The union had also established a fair case that it may need to take further action. In these circumstances, the injunction should not have been granted, the Chief Justice said.

He also noted the freedom to form associations and unions is guaranteed by Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution and the entitlement to take part in industrial action must be seen in that context. An important aspect of any right is the choice of when and where to exercise it, he added.

In his concurring decision Mr Justice Hogan said that the 1990 Act gives the Oireachtas the right to regulate trade union activity under Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution. The courts “should not readily circumvent or frustrate this right”, he said.

• The 1990 Industrial Relations Act gives Trade Unions the right to choose when and where to exercise their rights, which will be upheld in Court.

• This Act should not be interpreted narrowly or restrictively as this would “defeat the purpose” of legislation to protect unions and their members.