A legal battle over industrial action on the Island continued yesterday, with a lawyer for the unions arguing that a government notice was insufficient.

The notice, published online on January 27 and in The Royal Gazette the next morning, stated there was an industrial dispute involving several government departments but did not delve into the details of what the dispute was.

Lawyer Delroy Duncan, representing five of the Island’s unions, said the notice was intended legally to be a warning that those in breach could be prosecuted, adding: “If you are going to prosecute somebody, you need to be pretty clear about what they are doing wrong.”

He suggested that the notices would come into effect the day after publication rather than the moment they were published.

The matter relates to three days of industrial action which took place beginning on January 26 in a dispute over the future of furlough days.

While the Minister of Home Affairs received an interim injunction from the courts on January 28 to halt the action, he is now seeking a permanent injunction to prevent future “illegal” strikes or a declaration from the courts that the unions had acted illegally.

While lawyer Gregory Howard, representing the minister, has argued that the unions have a long history of illegal strike action and acted in breach of contract in January, Mr Duncan this week argued that a letter sent by Bob Richards, the Minister of Finance, had amounted to a breach of trust and confidence.

Continuing his arguments yesterday he criticised the Crown’s use of articles from this newspaper to portray the unions as “rabble rousers”, arguing that the articles alone were not enough to prove the facts of the incidents. He also said that only one of the five unions listed in the indictment had been involved in the past incidents.

He further challenged the inclusion of the Fire Association in the list of respondents, stating the only evidence that any firefighters were at the demonstrations came from a single witness.

“There was no disruption of essential services,” he said.

“There was no disruption of fire services. Were the men were off duty? Did they take the day off? There is no allegation that there was a disruption of the fire service.”

Mr Duncan called on the court to provide declarations, not admonishing any party but clarifying the proper process to avoid further confusion in the future, adding: “I have no doubt that the section four notice cries out for some form of declaratory statement so the Crown know, and the respondents and the country know, what should be done under a notice and they can govern themselves appropriately.”