The High Court granted University College Cork (UCC) interlocutory injunctions restraining two trade unions from picketing the university’s main campus entrances and interfering with access to or from campus on May 13, 2015, when students were due to sit examinations.
The order followed UCC’s application for relief pending trial. The university had sought to prevent picketing at its main campus, excluding the Tyndall National Institute, and to protect access and egress. The court granted relief in the terms requested in the notice of motion.
The dispute concerned a pay claim by UCC employees at the Tyndall National Institute, a university research institute at Lee Maltings, about one kilometre from the main campus. The unions, SIPTU and the Irish Federation of University Teachers, had held a secret ballot among members working at Tyndall. The judgment records that members outside Tyndall who worked on the main campus did not take part in that ballot.
The unions initially notified UCC of planned industrial action and pickets at Tyndall. After UCC sought clarification, the unions said pickets would also be placed at six of the twelve main-campus entrances on May 13, from 7am to 5.30pm. UCC argued that the ballot did not cover any main-campus employees who might be called on to take industrial action. It said the unions’ call for support, alongside the planned pickets, raised a serious question about compliance with section 14(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
SIPTU argued that the ballot and notice met the statutory requirements and that the main-campus picket was intended to communicate the Tyndall workers’ dispute peacefully. It said main-campus union members had been told to attend work as usual and that examinations would not be disrupted. The court noted those later assurances, but said the earlier communications had described the proposed campus picketing as an escalation and asked all members to support Tyndall staff. It found a serious issue for trial over whether main-campus members had been called on to engage in industrial action.
The court did not finally decide whether the ballot complied with the Act or whether the proposed action was lawful. At this interlocutory stage, it held that UCC had raised a serious issue to be tried. It also found damages inadequate and the balance of convenience in favour of relief, given the potential effect on university operations and examinations. The injunctions were limited to the relief set out in UCC’s motion; the judgment does not determine the underlying pay dispute or final rights of the parties.