HIGH COURT proceedings against trade union Siptu, Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) officials and employees of a cargo handling company involved in a strike at Dublin port over the alleged harassment and intimidation of staff who are continuing to work, have been adjourned.
Last week Marine Terminals Limited secured an interim injunction against the unions, several of their officials and a number of former and current employees arising out of what the company claims is an “unlawful escalation” of the strike.
Mr Justice Kevin Feeney granted Marine Terminals an interim injunction against Siptu, Ictu and 10 named individuals.
Those individuals include Ictu assistant general secretary Peter Bunting, Siptu officials Oliver McDonagh and Christy McQuillan, and the union’s general secretary Joe O’Flynn.
Ken Fleming, an agent of the International Transport Workers Federation, and five current and former employees of the company were also named.
Yesterday Mr Justice Feeney was due to recommence hearing to have the injunction made permanent until the full hearing of the action.
However following an application by Richard Kean SC, for the defendants, for time to respond to affidavits from the company, the judge agreed to adjourn the matter to next Monday.
Since early July, about 50 port operatives at Marine Terminals, who are members of Siptu, have been involved in a dispute with the company over redundancies and changes to workers’ terms and conditions.
The company claims the defendants have tried to “coerce and intimidate” employees who were not on strike to cease working, by calling them scabs, and engaging in a “name and shame” campaign.
It also claimed that a group of protesters had travelled to Athy, Co Kildare, where some of the personnel who are continuing to work at Marine Terminals live, and put up posters and distributed fliers identifying the workers concerned.
The defendants’ action, it is claimed, is in breach of the workers’ constitutional right to earn a living. The workers are members of Siptu.
The defendants, while accepting there has been “an escalated progression of the dispute” and have described other workers as “scabs”, denied that they have engaged in unlawful industrial action. They denied that the term scab has been used in a threatening or intimidating manner. They are opposed to the injunction being granted.