In the Irish Courts
| Published date | 01 April 1952 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835201600206 |
| Date | 01 April 1952 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
REPUBLIC
OF
IRELAND
SUPREME
COURT
ILLEGALITY
AND
TRADE
DISPUTES
Corry v. National Union
of
Vintners &ors.
Bys. 12 of
the
Intoxicating Liquor (General) Act, 1924,
it
is illegal to employ on licensed premises anyone
below
the
age of 16.
If
a
trade
union wishes to
obtain
the
re-instatement of an employee upon such premises,
and
the
employer maintains
that
such employee is below
the
age of 16, can
it
be claimed
that
there is a
'trade
dispute'
within
the
Trade
Disputes Act, 1906?
In
Corry v. National
Union
of
Vintners &ors. (1950
I.R.
315),
the
Supreme
Court in Ireland decided
that,
at
least where it is established
that
the
employee is below 16, no such
trade
dispute can
exist.
In
that
case, a boy between
the
ages of 15
and
16
was employed
by
the
plaintiff
and
(informing
the
Union
officials
that
he was 16) he joined
the
defendant Union,
whereupon he was dismissed from his employment.
In
an
action brought for
the
purpose of restraining
the
Union
from picketing his premises in consequence of this dismissal
the
plaintiff, while he failed against
the
Union itself
(Vacher's
Case)
was successful against
the
officials who
had
been engaged in picketing his premises. The ground of
the
decision was
that
the
officialscould
not
obtain
the
protection
of
the
Act of 1906, for
the
reason
that,
since
it
would
be
illegal to re-instate
the
boy
as
they
requested, no
trade
dispute could be said to exist. Such a dispute can, there-
fore, only arise
out
of a refusal
by
one side to recognise a
lawful claim made
by
the
other.
It
would seem
to
follow
that
a de facto dispute relating to
the
carrying on of a
trade
is
not
necessarily a
trade
dispute.
For
instance, if, in
the
circumstances of
the
present case,
the
parties
had
been in
dispute upon
the
question whether
the
boy
was or was
not
176
To continue reading
Request your trial