Secondary picketing

NUTLEY BOY

Following this mornings traffic chaos - still chaotic as I write - I am just wondering what is the law in relation to secondary picketing ?

Is it legally defined ?

Are there criminal or civil sanctions for it ?

Could employers who are not in dispute seek injunctions to stop the secondary action at their premises ?

Are the union(s) representing the secondary picketers and or the flying pickets open to civil action(s) for damages for direct consequential losses ?

uck51js9zml2yt

AFAIK, its illegal.
This was an unofficial dispute at an organsiation where the Union had no dispute with.

DB/IR can bring them to court for loss of earnings....and I hope they do

Zaph

Nadia Curved Jellyfish wrote: »

AFAIK, its illegal.
This was an unofficial dispute at an organsiation where the Union had no dispute with.

DB/IR can bring them to court for loss of earnings....and I hope they do

Presumably the union's argument will be that they're all CIE group companies and so they're fair game. I'd love to see a judge disavow them of that and hit them with a large bill.

coylemj

The unions said that they did not condone (but did 'understand') the actions taken by their members - a legally permissible way to say 'good on ye lads'.

Classic case of plausible deniability, to coin a phrase.

loyatemu

coylemj wrote: »

The unions said that they did not condone (but did 'understand') the actions taken by their members - a legally permissible way to say 'good on ye lads'.

Classic case of plausible deniability, to coin a phrase.

"all our members, all over the country, separately decided to picket a load of different depots, at the same time"

sounds plausible alright.

coylemj

Union guy on the radio (RTE radio1) just now claiming that none of their officials organised today's pickets but said it will 'probably' happen again. That might cost them a penny or two if there's pickets on bus garages again next week and DB (or IR) takes them to court.

GerardKeating

coylemj wrote: »

Union guy on the radio (RTE radio1) just now claiming that none of their officials organised today's pickets but said it will 'probably' happen again. That might cost them a penny or two if there's pickets on bus garages again next week and DB (or IR) takes them to court.

Predicting the future is not a crime. He was clearly offering an opinion, based on his experience and knowledge of the personalities involved.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I am just wondering what is the law in relation to secondary picketing ?

Nadia Curved Jellyfish wrote: »

AFAIK, its illegal

Secondary picketing is not illegal, it is not proscribed by legislation or common law.

More accurate to say it is unlawful, however secondary picketing is lawful when those picketing believe at the commencement of their attendance and throughout the continuance of their attendance that an employer has directly assisted their employer who is a party to the trade dispute for the purpose of frustrating a strike or other industrial action.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Is it legally defined ?

No, although you have the guidance of S11(1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 which outlines when picketing is lawful.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Are there criminal or civil sanctions for it ?

Civil only, it isn't a criminal offence.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Could employers who are not in dispute seek injunctions to stop the secondary action at their premises ?

Yes.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Are the union(s) representing the secondary picketers and or the flying pickets open to civil action(s) for damages for direct consequential losses ?

If they sanctioned it yes it's possible for them to be held liable unless it's a lawful secondary picket as per above.

NUTLEY BOY

Some additional thoughts for now.

1. Could the actions of the flying pickets constitute obstruction under S.9 Public Order Act 1994 - link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/9/enacted/en/html#sec9

2. Some of the flying pickets have thrown a few verbal shapes in the media and given the impression of a possibility of repeating last Friday's conduct. Could the employers not in dispute seek an injunction on a quia timet basis and drawn sufficiently widely to embrace a group of people as distinct from any named individuals ?

3. Finally, what would be the likely legal position be of those bus drivers and train drivers not in dispute as regards their contracts of employment in wilfully refusing to attend for their duties ? Forget about the inter-union solidarity tripe, I am thinking about the legal position.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Some additional thoughts for now.

1. Could the actions of the flying pickets constitute obstruction under S.9 Public Order Act 1994 - link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/9/enacted/en/html#sec9

Unless they actually forced other workers not to go into work then I'd say no.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

2. Some of the flying pickets have thrown a few verbal shapes in the media and given the impression of a possibility of repeating last Friday's conduct. Could the employers not in dispute seek an injunction on a quia timet basis and drawn sufficiently widely to embrace a group of people as distinct from any named individuals ?

Such interlocutory injunctions can and do be issued and can apply to persons unknown.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

3. Finally, what would be the likely legal position be of those bus drivers and train drivers not in dispute as regards their contracts of employment in wilfully refusing to attend for their duties ? Forget about the inter-union solidarity tripe, I a thinking about the legal position.

It would simply be a matter of breach of contract and whatever grievance and disciplinary mechanisms are in place to deal with such.

4ensic15

Procuring a breach of contract is a crime. Arguably secondary picketing involves procuring a breach of contract.

GerardKeating

GM228 wrote: »

It would simply be a matter of breach of contract and whatever grievance and disciplinary mechanisms are in place to deal with such.

But disciplining working for not passing a picket is a sure way of provoking an all out strike.

coylemj

GerardKeating wrote: »

But disciplining working for not passing a picket is a sure way of provoking an all out strike.

+1 DB or IR starting a fight with their own workers would suit the BE workers fine but it's unlikely to happen.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

Procuring a breach of contract is a crime.

Isn't procuring a breach of contract just a tort rather than a crime (although it could be an element of a crime I suppose).

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Isn't procuring a breach of contract just a tort rather than a crime (although it could be an element of a crime I suppose).

Procuring a breach of contract is what Charles Stewart Parnell was jailed for. Pity you were'nt there for him in court.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

Procuring a breach of contract is what Charles Stewart Parnell was jailed for. Pity you were'nt there for him in court.

He was tried for conspiracy which is an offence, (conspiracy to induce tenants not to pay rent), not specifically procuring a breach of contract which is a tort, but I see where you are coming from. I'm also pretty certain he was not jailed or found guilty.

Kitsunegari

coylemj wrote: »

+1 DB or IR starting a fight with their own workers would suit the BE workers fine but it's unlikely to happen.

The workers won't be paid and that will be it. Maybe a small warning or something but either way I can't see the 'not passing a picket' excuse working as an excuse in court. I think this is the first time CIE will want to punish the Unions for this.

We can't allow wildcat strikes in this country and it's good to see DB and IE pursing the Unions for costs in this.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

He was tried for conspiracy which is an offence, (conspiracy to induce tenants not to pay rent), not specifically procuring a breach of contract which is a tort, but I see where you are coming from. I'm also pretty certain he was not jailed or found guilty.

He was a prisoner in Kilmainham. Inducing tenants not to pay rent is procuring a breach of contract. All tenancies are presumed to arise under a contract since the time of Deasy's Act in 1860.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

He was a prisoner in Kilmainham. Inducing tenants not to pay rent is procuring a breach of contract. All tenancies are presumed to arise under a contract since the time of Deasy's Act in 1860.

I'm aware of the Deasy's Act, I'm not saying he didn't procure a breach of contract. The point I made is procuring a breach of contract is a tort in itself, nothing more - it isn't criminal.

To break a contract is more accurately an unlawful act, the question then is whether it is of that type of unlawfulness requisite to make an agreement a criminal conspiracy. 

As I stated he was tried (unsuccessfully I might add) for conspiracy, yes fair enough this arose from the procuring of breach of contract based on the above, but this had nothing to do with his internment.

He was later interned (after his unsuccessful criminal charge) without trial under the provisions of the Protection of Persons and Property Act 1881 (the Coercian Act) as a way to try to break the Land League, and only later released after the Kilmainham Treaty.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

. . . As I stated he was tried (unsuccessfully I might add) for conspiracy, yes fair enough this arose from the procuring of breach of contract based on the above, but this had nothing to do with his internment.

Conspiracy to do what? Conspiracy in the abstract isn't a crime know to the law; it has to be conspiracy to commit some particular offence. Do you know what the offence was that Parnell was charged with conspiring to commit?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Conspiracy to do what? Conspiracy in the abstract isn't a crime know to the law; it has to be conspiracy to commit some particular offence. Do you know what the offence was that Parnell was charged with conspiring to commit?

Yes I already stated it a few posts back - conspiracy to induce tenants not to pay rent.

At common law conspiracy isn't restricted to a particular offence, it can involve civil wrongs and make those non-criminal unlawful wrongs into a crime.

It is important to note that conspiracy is an agreement to carry out an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, not an agreement to carry out a criminal act.

Robbo

If this was an exam question, you'd probably do yourself no harm by throwing in Coercion as a possibility.