The High Court granted Dublin Airport Authority plc an interlocutory injunction restraining planned industrial action by SIPTU members, after finding serious issues to be tried about the ballot and agreements affecting some workers. The court did not decide whether the underlying IASS pension dispute was a trade dispute, and made no findings on Ryanair’s separate application.
The proposed action was a four-hour stoppage at Dublin and Cork airports, from 5am to 9am on 14 March 2014. The proceedings were brought by the airport authority and Ryanair, both seeking orders against SIPTU. Justice Gilligan delivered the judgment on 12 March 2014.
The authority argued that SIPTU’s January ballot was limited to union members who belonged to the Irish Airline (General Employees) Superannuation Scheme, although other union members might be called on to support the action. It also said some workers covered by airport police, fire service and search unit agreements had been balloted despite those agreements requiring procedures before industrial action. These were the authority’s submissions, supported by affidavit evidence that SIPTU had not answered with a replying affidavit.
SIPTU argued that the ballot covered the members affected by the pension dispute and that the agreements relied on by the authority were collective agreements not incorporated into employees’ contracts. On the question of a trade dispute, it submitted that employee pension benefits could fall within the statutory definition.
The judge found serious issues to be tried over whether the ballot should have included other union members whom SIPTU could reasonably have expected to take part, and whether workers subject to the agreements were entitled to be balloted before the specified procedures had been completed. The court also found a serious issue about whether participation could breach existing employment agreements. It held that SIPTU had not provided evidence showing compliance with the statutory secret-ballot requirement and could not rely at this stage on the statutory restriction on injunctions.
The judge concluded that damages would not adequately compensate the airport authority for the disruption alleged, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The judgment records that the court would hear submissions on the form of the order; it does not set out the final order’s wording.
The court left the trade-dispute question for a full hearing, finding insufficient information about the pension scheme to decide it on this application. It did not consider or determine Ryanair’s application. The judge also urged the parties to continue engaging with the expert panel working to resolve the pension dispute.