HOW FAR is it permissible for a trade union to go in pursuit of an industrial dispute?
Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn between legitimate picketing, strong campaigning and free speech on the one hand and actions, on the other, which could be seen as intimidation of workers who are not taking part in a strike?
And what is the position relating to community activists or political groups who align themselves to the cause of the trade union and support the striking workers?
These are among the issues that are likely to be addressed in the context of the current case being brought in the High Court by the Dublin port firm Marine Terminals Limited against employees and senior trade union leaders, arising from a bitter dispute, which has been under way now for two months.
The action has been referred to informally as the ‘‘scab’’ case as some elements of it relate to the meaning and use of this term and on whether it constitutes a form of harassment of workers who are not taking part in a strike.
However, the issues involved are more fundamental.
The case involves some of the most experienced trade union leaders in the country. With a growing trend of employers going to the courts over the conduct of disputes – there have been two this week alone – the eventual decision of the High Court could have significant implications for the rules of industrial actions in the future.
The case involves the company seeking an injunction.
However, the process will be closely watched by employers and unions, in a climate where strikes and various forms of action by workers in defence of their jobs and conditions are becoming common.