Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 93, 1967

1. 44. The Committee considered this case at its meeting in May 1966, when it recommended the Governing Body to decide, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 211 to 221 of its 92nd Report, that certain allegations relating to the non-recognition of the Irish Telephonists' Association did not call for further examination. This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body at its 166th Session (June 1966). With regard to other allegations relating to arrests of strike pickets, concerning which the Committee submitted an interim report to the Governing Body in paragraphs 222 to 226 of its 92nd Report, the Committee decided to request the Government to be good enough to furnish further information on certain points before formulating its recommendations to the Governing Body. This request was conveyed to the Government by a letter dated 4 July 1966. The Government furnished the information requested by a letter dated 19 October 1966. The present report deals only with these outstanding allegations.
2. 45. Ireland has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 46. It was alleged that on 25 September 1965, in the course of the strike called by the complaining organisation in support of its demand for recognition as a negotiating body, an interim injunction was granted restraining the Chairman of the Association and certain named members, their servants and agents from picketing post office premises. On 8 October an interlocutory injunction was made and on 21 October the High Court made a committal order against three defendants. Two members were jailed on 26 October for " picketing their places of employment in furtherance of a trade dispute ". They went on hunger strike and then the Government applied to the High Court for their release which, said the complainants, was granted unconditionally. It was alleged that 20 members of the Association were imprisoned for peaceful picketing at the National Parliament, as were four female telephonists who supported them, the Government invoking the provisions of section 28 (1) of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, which provides that " it shall not be lawful for any public meeting to be held in or any procession to pass along or through any public street or enclosed place which or any part of which is situated within one-half of a mile from any building in which both Houses or either House of Oireachtas are or is sitting or about to sit ". To invoke an Act designed for political offences against citizens picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute is, in the complainants' view, an " unwarranted trespass on the freedom of labour ". The complainants declared that they had a trade dispute through their employer, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, with the Government and that, under the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, they could " attend at or near a house where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be".
2. 47. The Government stated in its communication dated 20 April 1966 that pickets were placed on telephone exchanges in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Shannon Airport and elsewhere. The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining members of the Association from picketing post office premises pending the hearing of the proceedings instituted. They continued to picket post office premises, proceedings were instituted for contempt of the High Court order, and two persons who refused to give an undertaking to obey the High Court were committed to prison. They went on hunger strike and were released after eight days by order of the High Court on the application of the Attorney-General. The Government emphasised that they were not imprisoned for picketing but for refusing to obey an order of the High Court; they could have appealed to the Supreme Court but did not do so. Picketing of post office premises continued but no further proceedings for contempt were taken. But some members of the Association were convicted of offences such as assault, intimidation, etc.
3. 48. With respect to the alleged picketing of the Houses of Parliament, the Government stated that article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably without arms, subject to laws regulating meetings in the vicinity of either House of Parliament, and that section 28 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, is based on that provision. No one, however, according to the Government, was imprisoned for picketing under that Act. Some of those arrested under the said section 28 refused to accept bail and were for that reason held in custody, generally for a day or two, pending the hearing of prosecution proceedings. They were subsequently fined by the summary court.
4. 49. The Committee observed at its meeting in May 1966 that it has always applied the principle that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far, but only in so far, as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. It has pointed out that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised. The Committee has also emphasised the importance that it attaches to the principle that pickets acting in accordance with the law should not be subject to interference by the public authorities.
5. 50. From the evidence furnished by the Government it appeared that a number of persons were arrested for assault, intimidation, etc., or for offences committed illegally in the vicinity of Parliament. The Committee did not consider that these particular points, therefore, called for further consideration. One point, however, remained difficult to appreciate, in spite of the information furnished by the Government. The Government had not made clear its attitude to the contention of the complainants that their members were in dispute with their employer, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and that in connection with such disputes they were entitled to picket peacefully their places of employment pursuant to the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. In these circumstances it did not appear clear to the Committee on what ground application was made to the High Court for an injunction restraining them from picketing their places of employment-post offices at Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Shannon Airport, etc.-or on what grounds an injunction in this respect was granted. The Committee, therefore, before submitting its recommendations on this aspect of the case to the Governing Body, decided to request the Government to be good enough to furnish fuller information on this particular point.
6. 51. In its letter dated 19 October 1966 the Government states that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Attorney-General made application to the High Court for an injunction restraining the members of the Irish Telephonists' Association from picketing their places of employment on the following grounds: (1) the Association is not an authorised trade union holding a negotiation licence and consequently, by virtue of section 11 of the Trade Union Act, 1941, sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, did not apply; (2) the claim of the Association for recognition as a negotiating body was not a trade dispute within the meaning of the 1906 Act and consequently section 2 of the 1906 Act did not apply. On these grounds the High Court granted the injunction.
7. 52. It would appear, therefore, that the High Court found that the complaining organisation was not, legally speaking, in dispute with the employing authority concerned and that, accordingly, section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (which permits peaceful picketing in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute) could not apply. The Committee in fact, in previously recommending the Governing Body in paragraphs 211 to 221 of its 92nd Report to dismiss the allegations relating to the non-recognition of the complaining organisation, did so because, on the evidence before it, the reason for non-recognition was essentially related to the existence of an established system based on union security arrangements.