Dublin Port strike harassment case adjourned

High Court proceedings against Siptu, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions 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 due to 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.

Today Mr Justice Feeney was due to recommence the 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 Monday of next week.

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 groups of protesters had travelled to Athy in Co Kildare, where some of the personnel who are continuing to work at Marine Terminals Ltd live, and put up posters and distributed fliers identifying the workers concerned.

The defendants' action, it is claimed, is in breach of the workers', who are also members of Siptu, constitutional right to earn a living.

The defendants, have accepted that there has been "an escalated progression of the dispute" and have described other workers as "scabs", but have 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.