The High Court found that the Building and Allied Trades Union (BATU) and three of its officials wrongfully excluded blocklayer John O’Connell from the union and then obstructed his ability to work on building sites because he was not a member. The court held that their conduct breached his constitutional rights and amounted to intimidation and conspiracy.
The ruling by Mr Justice Ryan, delivered on 17 July 2014, followed a trial of Mr O’Connell’s claims. He had alleged that BATU officials imposed unreasonable conditions on his membership and that union pressure led employers to remove him from sites. BATU denied the claims.
The court found that Mr O’Connell had been unable to secure full membership after an eight-week probationary period, despite no evidence that he had done anything to disqualify himself. It rejected the union officials’ explanation that he had failed to return to obtain his full membership card, describing that account as “frankly absurd” in the circumstances.
The judge also accepted Mr O’Connell’s evidence, supported in part by employer testimony and a social welfare record, that union pressure led to his removal from a building site in October 1999 and affected his work afterwards. The judgment said BATU sought to enforce a closed shop for blocklayers while excluding Mr O’Connell from membership. It held that the union could make membership a condition of employment, but could not exclude a qualified worker and then prevent him from working on that basis.
The court found for Mr O’Connell against BATU and its officials for breach of constitutional rights, conspiracy and intimidation. It did not determine damages or grant final injunctive relief at this stage. A separate hearing was ordered to assess damages and consider injunctive and ancillary relief. The judgment said Mr O’Connell would have to prove the losses that were properly recoverable; the findings did not mean he was entitled to compensation for the entire period claimed.
The claim against the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) was dismissed. The CIF had been added to the case in 2012, years after the proceedings began, and pleaded that the claim was time-barred. The court held that the events in issue arose between 1997 and 2001 and that the evidence did not establish more recent wrongful conduct by the CIF. It also found no evidence that the CIF conspired or agreed with BATU or its officials to deprive Mr O’Connell of work. The CIF was therefore not involved in the further hearing on relief.