A High Court judge yesterday refused to grant an interlocutory order directing the TUI executive to publish a new edition of its newsletter giving both sides of the argument for and against the proposed new national agreement, the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
Mr Justice Lavan said the TUI leaders had negotiated an "outstanding resolution" of their members' pay requirements and the application before him "made a mountain out of a molehill".
A special edition of TUI News, with the headline "New National Deal Offers Up To 29% Rise" was distributed to TUI members from February 16th last. In preparation for a ballot on the proposed PPF, each member has also been circulated with a ballot paper, the full text of the PPF and an "explanatory document".
The ballot papers have to be returned by March 16th and TUI delegates will vote on the PPF at a special delegate conference of the ICTU on March 23rd.
Yesterday, two TUI members - Ms Mary Friel and Mr Eddie Conlon - applied to Mr Justice Lavan for orders directing the executive to publish a new edition of TUI News, or some other communication, outlining both sides of the case for and against the PPF and giving equal prominence to both.
Mr Alex White, for the plaintiffs, argued the TUI executive had ignored a decision of its own congress which required it to give equal prominence in communications to the arguments for and against the PPF. In an affidavit, Ms Friel, of Lohunda Park, Clonsilla, said Rule 34a of the TUI Rules obliges the executive committee to carry out the instructions of congress. In a resolution passed in 1996, congress had given specific instructions and directions on the conduct of national ballots. It said such ballots must be held "in an atmosphere of free and democratic debate" and the executive "in all their communications, shall carry both sides of the argument concerning the ballot, giving equal prominence to each". Mr George Bermingham, for the TUI executive, opposed the application. He said the TUI News provided information on the outcome of the negotiations on the PPF and left people to decide for themselves how to vote.
He said the ballot was already under way and was being conducted in accordance with the TUI rule book. TUI News had already been distributed and the question of another edition of TUI News being published now did not arise. He said Ms Friel and Mr Conlon had raised their objections at meetings of the TUI executive but the majority disagreed with their view.
In an affidavit, Mr James Dorney, TUI general secretary, denied that TUI News was published at variance with the instructions of congress. He said it did not fail completely to carry both sides of the argument as required because its purpose was to give information to members to enable them to vote for or against the agreement.
He said Mr Conlon and Ms Friel were involved in organisations fundamentally opposed to any notion of collective bargaining. (In a further affidavit, Ms Friel said she was not a member of such an organisation, while Mr Conlon was involved with the Campaign Against Partnership.)
Dismissing the application, Mr Justice Lavan said he was satisfied that a meeting of the TUI executive of February 18th last, where Ms Friel and Mr Conlon had voiced their complaints, had properly dealt with matters.
Because of factors including the decisions taken and the existence of the ballot, the balance of convenience was against the orders being granted, the judge said. He said he would deal with the issue of costs in three weeks. Mr Bermingham said his side would not be seeking costs if that were an end to the matter, but Mr White said his clients intended to proceed with a full hearing of the issues in dispute.