The High Court has granted Carey Glass U.C. and Carey Glass Holdings U.C. the relief they sought to prevent Unite the Union from attending at or near their premises in Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, in connection with a trade dispute at a separate company’s Northern Ireland facility. The judge said he would hear counsel on the precise form of the order.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 23 November 2023, Mr Justice David Nolan found there was a serious issue to be tried over the union’s conduct during visits on 16 and 25 August and 21 September. He held, on the evidence before him, that the visits amounted to picketing rather than protest. The dispute was outside the State, and the judge concluded that the activity was not lawful under section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
The dispute involved Unite members at Vista Therm Ltd’s facility in Lurgan, Northern Ireland. Carey Glass Holdings owns Vista Therm, but the judge stressed that the companies are separate legal entities operating in different jurisdictions. Unite argued that the Carey family’s ownership and directorship links gave Carey Glass influence over Vista Therm and that the visits were peaceful action in furtherance of the dispute. The companies said they were not parties to the dispute and that the union’s activity at their premises was unlawful.
On 16 August, union members delivered a letter asking Carey Glass’s chief executive to intervene with Vista Therm management. Carey Glass’s evidence was that the group then picketed at the approaches to its premises for about 90 minutes, handing out leaflets about the dispute. Around 20 people returned on 25 August and sought to distribute leaflets. On 21 September, after the case had been before the court, between 20 and 30 people staged a silent demonstration lasting about 80 minutes.
The judge said the union had described its aim as communicating information to workers, customers, suppliers and others to press for an end to the dispute. He considered that purpose fell within the statutory description of peaceful picketing. He also said the union could not rely on the secondary-picketing provision because the dispute was not covered by the 1990 Act.
In granting the requested interlocutory relief, the judge applied the “serious issue to be tried” threshold. He said the balance of convenience favoured the companies and damages would not adequately address potentially incalculable reputational loss. The underlying action was not finally determined: the judge said questions of civil liability remained for trial, and the exact terms of the order were still to be settled.