PROTESTS:UP TO a dozen gardaí barred the entrance to court number six in the High Court yesterday in an attempt to hold back the huge number of supporters of the Thomas Cook workers facing imprisonment for contempt of court.
More than 300 supporters and union activists protested outside Dublin's Four Courts against the arrests in the early hours of yesterday of some 26 workers and union representatives and three politicians who had occupied the Thomas Cook premises on Dublin's Grafton Street in defiance of court orders.
Most of the protesters tried to gain access to court but were held back by gardaí because it was already packed to capacity with those arrested and almost 20 gardaí who accompanied them from the Bridewell Garda station, where they had been held since shortly after 5am.
Undeterred, the protesters continued to occupy the corridors of the High Court calling for the doors to be opened. Eventually a legal representative of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county councillor Richard Boyd Barrett, who was among those arrested, asked them to wait outside.
Outside the court they continued to chant slogans calling for the release of the workers. Their loud calls of support could still be heard in the courtroom but were in marked contrast to the atmosphere inside where the workers waited anxiously to hear if they would face fines or even prison for defying court orders.
The legal representatives of the workers and the eight union representatives who were also arrested assured the court their clients wanted to purge their contempt and would give undertakings to abide by the court order not to trespass on or interfere with access to the Thomas Cook offices.
Counsel for Thomas Cook, Mark Connaughton SC, gave hope to the workers when he told Mr Justice Michael Peart that the company was prepared to enter talks with the staff union, the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, and that the company wanted to "defuse" the situation.
However, they still had an anxious half-hour wait to hear the verdict of Mr Justice Peart.
Those arrested had for the most part deliberately breached court orders, and ignored the clear advice of their legal representatives in doing so, the judge said. The workers' actions clearly reflected the anger they felt at their perceived unfair treatment, but he said their dispute with the company was not the concern of the court.
"The law of the land cannot be ignored. I cannot permit a court order to be disobeyed; that would be a recipe for anarchy," he said.
However, he said he would not add to their distress by imposing a prison sentence. A fine would be appropriate, he said, but he considered this an exceptional case and did not impose one.
There was a collective sigh of relief from the court, but the workers remained subdued until they reached their cheering supporters outside.
Antoinette Shevlin, who had worked with the company for 10 years, said the arrest and court appearance had been a terrible ordeal. "I'm absolutely drained. We've had a really, really tough four days and I can't even describe the night and the day we've had."
She believed the sit-in had been successful in persuading the company to return to talks.
"We did say we would fight to the bitter end and hopefully we are at the end of this now and we can put all of this to bed and move on with our lives."
