High Court to decide on Dublin port intimidation case tomorrow

The High Court will decide tomorrow if it is to continue an injunction 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 at the firm who have continued to work.

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 two-month-old strike.

Today, following the conclusion of submissions from both parties, Mr Justice Kevin Feeney said that he will decide tomoorow afternoon if the injunction should be made permanent until the full hearing of the action.

The judge previously 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.

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 group 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, while accepting that 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 and are opposed to the injunction being continued.