The Supreme Court yesterday decided that the High Court should investigate whether a ballot by the Building and Allied Trades Union over a dispute at a Dublin City University building site was adequate.
The court continued a recent High Court order restraining the union and named persons from picketing the site at Collins Avenue, Dublin. The injunction was granted to G and T Crampton Ltd, Ballsbridge, Dublin.
Crampton has been engaged to construct a new science block for DCU and had hired subcontractors for the groundwork. Crampton claimed unlawful industrial action by union members, namely, that on November 17th a picket was placed reading, "Official Dispute - Building and Allied Trades Union - G & T Crampton Ltd".
Ms Justice Laffoy in the High Court granted a restraining order to Crampton, which the union yesterday appealed to the Supreme Court. Delivering the Supreme Court decision, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said it appeared the picket was peaceful.
The High Court judge had stated there was no evidence the ballot outcome had favoured picketing. The 1990 Industrial Relations Act dealt with "a strike or other industrial action". The question concerned the nature of the proposals before members to have an effective ballot.
Mr Justice Hamilton referred to the ballot paper in this case. It stated: "Official Ballot Paper. Ballot on proposal to engage in strike or other industrial action . . ."
He said the Act's definition of "strike or other industrial action" encompassed many activities of which picketing was only one. The question was whether it was sufficient to put to members the option of voting for "strike or other industrial action" without specifying the nature of the action. The Chief Justice said the court considered there was a fair issue to be tried.