The Supreme Court overruled a lower court finding that under key legislation governing industrial relations there exists an “absolute bar” to courts granting injunctions restraining action, where the correct legal procedures have been followed.
The case involved a dispute concerning a travel allowance of one hours pay that had previously been paid to its employees. The union conducted a ballot which resulted in the intentions to proceed with industrial action, which would involve hundreds of mechanical workers to shut down construction works on big projects and strike for their demands.
The company sought an injunction to prevent its employees from inter alia picketing certain premises, as well as specific performance of the employment contracts requiring some of the employees to attend work. The company also contested the industrial action commenced in breach of a no strike clause contained in the SEO as the dispute between the company and employees was subject to a dispute resolution mechanisms prescribed. In March 2023, The High Court granted the injunction sought, restraining any industrial action against the company.
The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court who highlighted that s.16 of the 2015 Act does not expressly provide no industrial action should take place without dispute resolution mechanisms. The Court further noted that according to the Industrial Relations Act 1990, there was an absolute bar on the granting of an injunction prohibiting industrial action where the limited conditions set out in s.19 are satisfied. However, the court noted that the High Court made no consideration of the 1990 Act in the High Court’s judgement.
In applying s.19 of the 1990 Act, the court found the four things must be established for s.19 to apply, the performance of a secret ballot, the outcome of the ballot favouring industrial action, not less than a week’s notice be given to the employer and that the respondent to the application established a fair case that they were acting in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute. After applying the facts of the case the Supreme Court found it applies, and therefore the granting of an Injunction would be impermissible. The Court also went further and concluded based on case law that even without s.19 the 1990 act the employer would not be entitled to such an injunction in any event.
The Supreme Court made reference in their judgement to Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution which guaranteed the right to freedom to form associations and unions and claimed that the right to take industrial action must be safeguarded as to give the constitutional right real meaning. The Union called this a historic win for workers; “This sends a powerful message to all employers that they can’t trample on a worker’s right to strike.”