Thomas Cook Industrial Dispute

Bren1609

Does anyone know what the workers demand are? i understand that they have turned down 5 pay weeks pay for each year of service but I havent heard what their demans are...

Bottle_of_Smoke

Bren1609 wrote: »

Does anyone know what the workers demand are? i understand that they have turned down 5 pay weeks pay for each year of service but I havent heard what their demans are...

I think they want 8weeks of pay

sovtek

It's not quite clear what TC offered as they tried to turf everyone out unexpectedly. I heard that whatever redundancy they would receive was conditional on a "gag order". Not sure what that means exactly.

Mario007

btw they were left off the court without any penalty! what a joke! no matter how sympathetic one can be to their plight, they broke the law!!!

Taxipete29

Mario007 wrote: »

btw they were left off the court without any penalty! what a joke! no matter how sympathetic one can be to their plight, they broke the law!!!

They were in contempt of court.They purged that contempt. It was hardly crime of the century now was it

Mario007

Taxipete29 wrote: »

They were in contempt of court.They purged that contempt. It was hardly crime of the century now was it

of course it wasnt, but they broke the law and they should be made responsible for it. thats how the law works...it is very funny to hear the judge saying the law needs to be obliged to and then letting them off without any sort of penalty...

mike kelly

it was a CIVIL case, not a criminal one. Also, laws are broken all the time, just look at the planning laws. People who illegally demolish buildings never end up in court. This should never have gone to court in the first place. The guards should have evicted them and left it at that. Just more easy money for the judiciary.

Mario007

mike kelly wrote: »

it was a CIVIL case, not a criminal one. Also, laws are broken all the time, just look at the planning laws. People who illegally demolish buildings never end up in court. This should never have gone to court in the first place. The guards should have evicted them and left it at that. Just more easy money for the judiciary.

even if it was a civil case, they still need to be punished for neglecting the law. the law is there to prevent anarchy and must be fully implemented. right now the impression is that you can break the law but as long as you get enough people to protest for your case you'll get away with it. these people deliberately refused to listen to the high court decission which is legaly binding and they should be punished for that.

dodzy

Mario007 wrote: »

of course it wasnt, but they broke the law and they should be made responsible for it. thats how the law works...it is very funny to hear the judge saying the law needs to be obliged to and then letting them off without any sort of penalty...

And your reccomendation for punishment would be what exactly ?:rolleyes:

mike kelly

Mario007 wrote: »

of course it wasnt, but they broke the law and they should be made responsible for it. thats how the law works...it is very funny to hear the judge saying the law needs to be obliged to and then letting them off without any sort of penalty...

You have a lot to learn about how the law works in Ireland.

mike kelly

Mario007 wrote: »

even if it was a civil case, they still need to be punished for neglecting the law. the law is there to prevent anarchy and must be fully implemented. right now the impression is that you can break the law but as long as you get enough people to protest for your case you'll get away with it. these people deliberately refused to listen to the high court decission which is legaly binding and they should be punished for that.

Being woken up at 5am is punishment enough.

Mario007

dodzy wrote: »

And your reccomendation for punishment would be what exactly ?:rolleyes:

something like community works...nothing too major, but something that would show that law has been broken and that people need to respect the laws. i'm certainly not advocating a prison sentence or a huge fine...

mike kelly wrote: »

You have a lot to learn about how the law works in Ireland.

i'll be studying it in college, but still try to elaborate on your post

Mario007

mike kelly wrote: »

Being woken up at 5am is punishment enough.

thats a ridiculous statement, if they didnt want to be woken up at 5 in the morning they should have stayed there...

AlekSmart

btw they were left off the court without any penalty! what a joke! no matter how sympathetic one can be to their plight, they broke the law!!!

I think that the laws surrounding Contempt are some of the widest ranging and serious one`sd on our statute books.

To imply that the TC Staff broke the law is perhaps failing to grasp what that Law actually was.
The Staff were in breach of a High Court Order which then translated into a contempt case.

The Gardai were directed to bring the individuals before the Court in order for that court to make a determination as to their status.

AFAIAA,the signing of undertakings by the staff satisfied the High Court`s requirements as to purging the contempt.

In this case therefore,there is no "punishment" as the Court has deemed the contempt issue to be resolved.

What IS interesting is the alacrity of the Thomas Cook company in heading for the High Court and the demonstration by the Gardai that they will act swiftly on any warrant or direction of that Court.

One could se it as a dress-rehersal for many similar events yet to come as the great-unwashed find themselves squeezed ever more tightly in order to ensure that the fortunes of 50 odd Developers are maintained... :rolleyes:

As an aside,has anybody seen the state of the Grafton Street TC Shopfront now.....a great mirror onto the facade of TCD indeed...and this from a leading player in the TOURISM INDUSTRY .... :eek:

jonsnow

AlekSmart wrote: »

What IS interesting is the alacrity of the Thomas Cook company in heading for the High Court and the demonstration by the Gardai that they will act swiftly on any warrant or direction of that Court.

One could se it as a dress-rehersal for many similar events yet to come as the great-unwashed find themselves squeezed ever more tightly in order to ensure that the fortunes of 50 odd Developers are maintained... :rolleyes:

Very interesting.Especially when you compare it to how slowly the wheels of justice turn in relation to other matters.There seems to have been absolutely no forward motion or sense of urgency about the numerous investigations into what was going on at Anglo for example.I know that the situations are very different but it is still striking how quickly the legal process can move when it wants to.

I read with great interest Judge Pearts ruling that "in a democratic society the rule of law cannot be broken or else there would be anarchy".Lets hope that this doesn,t only apply to disgruntled ordinary workers but also to crooked bankers manipulating the stock market.

The people laughing longest and hardest must be the barristers and solicitors. There was no way this case could succeed, they must be rolling in the aisles at how unions will fall over each other trying to give them money.

The workers were used by the employers, and became a handy photo op for every left wing politician in Dublin to affirm their socialist firebrand credentials, and now it'll be rank and file union members who will pick up the tab.

Red Sleeping Beauty

AlekSmart wrote: »

I think that the laws surrounding Contempt are some of the widest ranging and serious one`sd on our statute books.

To imply that the TC Staff broke the law is perhaps failing to grasp what that Law actually was.
The Staff were in breach of a High Court Order which then translated into a contempt case.

The Gardai were directed to bring the individuals before the Court in order for that court to make a determination as to their status.

AFAIAA,the signing of undertakings by the staff satisfied the High Court`s requirements as to purging the contempt.

In this case therefore,there is no "punishment" as the Court has deemed the contempt issue to be resolved.

What IS interesting is the alacrity of the Thomas Cook company in heading for the High Court and the demonstration by the Gardai that they will act swiftly on any warrant or direction of that Court.

One could se it as a dress-rehersal for many similar events yet to come as the great-unwashed find themselves squeezed ever more tightly in order to ensure that the fortunes of 50 odd Developers are maintained... :rolleyes:

That's a given.

30+ garda at 5am to remove some people who were selling holidays for a living.

As an aside,has anybody seen the state of the Grafton Street TC Shopfront now.....a great mirror onto the facade of TCD indeed...and this from a leading player in the TOURISM INDUSTRY .... :eek:

Yeah I saw it today. All bordered up with some posters for some wire transfering company and some Asian girl handing out leaflets for it. Very bizarre.

Bren1609 wrote: »

Does anyone know what the workers demand are? i understand that they have turned down 5 pay weeks pay for each year of service but I havent heard what their demans are...

They were promised their jobs were safe then on friday were lined up and fired on the spot and told the doors were being shut and TC were gone completely all the while the company is still making a profit and CEO was paid £5million.

AlekSmart

I read with great interest Judge Pearts ruling that "in a democratic society the rule of law cannot be broken or else there would be anarchy".Lets hope that this doesn,t only apply to disgruntled ordinary workers but also to crooked bankers manipulating the stock market.

I too had to stifle a guffaw as I read the good Judge`s remarks.
Perhaps the anarchaic aroma has`nt quite permeated through the Four Courts as yet but there`s plenty of it wafting about further downriver.

A quick stroll along the boardwalk or a walk through Talbot St and environs will set hizzonour right I suspect.

The abject failure of the Mechanisms of State to even go through the motions of seeking explainations from a relatively small and close knit cabal of bankers/developers/builders/politicians simply stinks when arranged alongside the Garda rush to defend Thomas Cooks constitutional rights....

Few of the intelligensia appear willing to consider that we as a culture are at a turning point and that there is verly little left holding us back from collapse.

oscarBravo

AlekSmart wrote: »

What IS interesting is ... the demonstration by the Gardai that they will act swiftly on any warrant or direction of that Court.

What an idyllic society we'd live in if the Gardai couldn't be bothered carrying out court orders.

Jip

Alan Rouge wrote: »

They were promised their jobs were safe then on friday were lined up and fired on the spot and told the doors were being shut and TC were gone completely all the while the company is still making a profit and CEO was paid £5million.

They were promised their jobs were safe, for a short time only. Everyone knew the place was closing, they just brought the closure date forward. And the Irish operation was not making money.

Deleted User wrote: »

The workers were used by the employers, and became a handy photo op for every left wing politician in Dublin to affirm their socialist firebrand credentials, and now it'll be rank and file union members who will pick up the tab.

The only people who used the workers were the bunch of lefties who hijacked the protest for political reasons and manipulated the employees. I'd put money on it that there were alot of disappointed union reps and councillors after the judges ruling as they were all hoping they'd by put in prison so they can then say "Hey, look how great we are, we're going to prison for our cause and the workers" bull****.

The socialist councillor who was on the media that day was such a tosser. He was comparing it to the great lock out and that he was there to support the workers. Eh, if you were such a supporter rather than an opportunist media whore why didn't you stay with them every night rather than just join them a couple of hours before you knew the gardai would act on the judges order and get yourself arrested ? Same goes for the rest of you tits that weren't actually employees, I'm looking at you RBB.

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

I too had to stifle a guffaw as I read the good Judge`s remarks.
Perhaps the anarchaic aroma has`nt quite permeated through the Four Courts as yet but there`s plenty of it wafting about further downriver.

In fairness to Judge Peart, and his colleagues in the High Court, he can't don a cape and mask at night and bring bankers to justice.

He can only deal with cases brought before him.

And nothing he said was remotely wrong. In fact, if he were to use the opportunity to talk about bankers or the price of the pint or whatever else was wrong with the country but had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the case before him, we'd be scratching our heads.

irish_bob

Jip wrote: »

They were promised their jobs were safe, for a short time only. Everyone knew the place was closing, they just brought the closure date forward. And the Irish operation was not making money.



The only people who used the workers were the bunch of lefties who hijacked the protest for political reasons and manipulated the employees. I'd put money on it that there were alot of disappointed union reps and councillors after the judges ruling as they were all hoping they'd by put in prison so they can then say "Hey, look how great we are, we're going to prison for our cause and the workers" bull****.

The socialist councillor who was on the media that day was such a tosser. He was comparing it to the great lock out and that he was there to support the workers. Eh, if you were such a supporter rather than an opportunist media whore why didn't you stay with them every night rather than just join them a couple of hours before you knew the gardai would act on the judges order and get yourself arrested ? Same goes for the rest of you tits that weren't actually employees, I'm looking at you RBB.

richard boyd barrett is a profesional poser

sovtek

Deleted User wrote: »

The workers were used by the employers, and became a handy photo op for every left wing politician in Dublin to affirm their socialist firebrand credentials, and now it'll be rank and file union members who will pick up the tab.

Seeing as the rank and file supported them and were amongst the people in front of TC for the holiday weekend why does it bother you?
The photo op came when the TC management were turfed out after trying to prevent two pregnant women from talking to the media. Then two managers shed crocodile tears in front of the cameras. Hours later they were the ones sticking the court order they had just aquired on the door.
Now one wonders how thick the brown envelope was to get a judge to come into work on a holiday.

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

Now one wonders how thick the brown envelope was to get a judge to come into work on a holiday.

Make any more accusations of corruption of the legal system again and I'll give you a very long ban. You've been here long enough to know that comments like the above are not tolerated.

nuac

I think there was over-reaction by both sides there. Five weeks redundancy was not a bad offer. The workers should have asked the union to negotiate further rather than occupying the offices.

When they did occupy the offices Thos Cooks over-reacted. The occupation was a trespass, but as they were closing down the business that weekend anyhow, it was hardly so urgent to get vacant posession of the premises. TC could have left them there, if necessary cutting off any phone etc connections.

Perhaps this place was too near to the Four COurts. If they were two or three hours drive away, they maight not have rushed to court.

If the union spent a lot of legal fees defending the injunction they were unwise to do so. There did not seem to be great prospects of preventing such an injunction going through, merely the possibility of some delay for talks.

Once their union and their legal team told them they could do no more, it was time for the workers to leave.

nesf

nuac wrote: »

When they did occupy the offices Thos Cooks over-reacted. The occupation was a trespass, but as they were closing down the business that weekend anyhow, it was hardly so urgent to get vacant posession of the premises. TC could have left them there, if necessary cutting off any phone etc connections.

I don't think it was an overreaction by Thomas Cook. Action needs to be taken against illegal disputes, such as occupying offices, otherwise you risk making them a common feature of such disputes.

irish_bob

nesf wrote: »

I don't think it was an overreaction by Thomas Cook. Action needs to be taken against illegal disputes, such as occupying offices, otherwise you risk making them a common feature of such disputes.

agreed , if this kind of thing was encouraged or appeased , it would frighten off foreign investment

Red Sleeping Beauty

irish_bob wrote: »

agreed , if this kind of thing was encouraged or appeased , it would frighten off foreign investment

Oh dear.

nesf

irish_bob wrote: »

agreed , if this kind of thing was encouraged or appeased , it would frighten off foreign investment

That wouldn't be the main reason, it'd be a nightmare for domestic business as much as foreign.

sovtek

nesf wrote: »

I don't think it was an overreaction by Thomas Cook. Action needs to be taken against illegal disputes, such as occupying offices, otherwise you risk making them a common feature of such disputes.

..and in turn make fair treatment of hard working loyal staff a thing of the past.

sovtek

nesf wrote: »

That wouldn't be the main reason, it'd be a nightmare for domestic business as much as foreign.

Those poor poor businessmen. My heart doth bleed for them. Getting 5 million bonuses on top of their half billion a year profit. Jesus why would anyone want to invest in that?

sovtek

Jip wrote: »

They were promised their jobs were safe, for a short time only. Everyone knew the place was closing, they just brought the closure date forward. And the Irish operation was not making money.

Are you sure about it not making any money or are you just assuming that Thomas Cook are just using good ol business sense here?

sovtek

sovtek wrote: »

Seeing as the rank and file supported them and were amongst the people in front of TC for the holiday weekend why does it bother you?

So after all the blather and nonsense about smashing the system, and capitalist pigs, and all the futile posturing about the Dublin Lockout, and after Richard seized the moment to get his pic in every paper, let's get down to the brass tacks.

How much richer are the unions barristers and solicitors anyway? And will they make considerably more than the increase in any workers payoff?

You gotta laugh at the whole system. The most amuisng are the ones who rail against it while in fact underpinning it. Whatever about the Thomas Cook staff, the Law Society and the Bar Council should thank all those "rank and file" for such a welcome, although obviously nonsensical, action.

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

Those poor poor businessmen. My heart doth bleed for them. Getting 5 million bonuses on top of their half billion a year profit. Jesus why would anyone want to invest in that?

How much of that profit came from the Irish operation?

Jip

Now now Oscar, don't be silly expecting facts and proper figures to appear in a debate with Sovtek.

AlekSmart

Never mind the In`s and out`s of the redundancy deal,what about the state Thos Cook have left the "High-Profile" Grafton St premises in.....:eek:

Obviously T Cook,being "In the Travel Business" would be mindful of maintaining some sort of quality of appearance following their departure but that apparantly does not extend to Éire......It`s a bleedin eyesore and directly opposite Trinity too....

On a brighter note perhaps the good Dr.Quirkey might be persuaded to open a new branch here to mirror his VERY impressive HQ on O Connell St.....

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

How much of that profit came from the Irish operation?

His bonus IIRC.

sovtek

Jip wrote: »

Now now Oscar, don't be silly expecting facts and proper figures to appear in a debate with Sovtek.

I'd back off with crap like that considering your figureless and baseless statements here-to-fore.

nuac

Re posts by Nesf and Irish Bob

With respect to Nesf and Irish Bob I have been involved in a number of cases for property owners or employers in takeovers or wrongful occupation of premises. WHile I have the relevant trespass proceedings, notice of motion and draft affidavit on the word processor, and can churn thiem out quickly if required I have got better results long term in most cases by negotiation.

Once an injunction is obtained the usual penalty for breach or non-complinance is a motion to show cause why those in breach should not be committed ( to prison ) for contempt of the court order. At that stage the judge takes over and makes the orders, including a direction to Gardai re bringing people before him/her, and may impose imprisonment until such time as the court order is obeyed. The party seeking the injunction is not in control of the process at that stage, but takes the blame for what developes. This process while within the law leaves a residue of bitterness. E.g Shell went that route in Erris Mayo - they would have been beter off to negotiate with the five objectors there.

Re post by Sovtek

Judge Michael Peart is a highly respected lawyer. He practised for many years on Ormond Quay, as did his father before him. He knows central Dublin well. There is a reference in an earlier post to brown envelopes and the Judge. That remark is a contempt of court, and should be deleted from this board.

sovtek

nuac wrote: »

That remark is a contempt of court, and should be deleted from this board.

I wonder how I can be in contempt of a court I have never set foot in nor disobeyed an order from?

nuac

nuac wrote: »

With respect to Nesf and Irish Bob I have been involved in a number of cases for property owners or employers in takeovers or wrongful occupation of premises. WHile I have the relevant trespass proceedings, notice of motion and draft affidavit on the word processor, and can churn thiem out quickly if required I have got better results long term in most cases by negotiation.

Suspect that the TC case is very different from the standard 'the tenant won't vacate the building' or 'there are caravans on the local GAA pitch'. In many cases there will be a nuisance value and the plaintiff just has to do a cost benefit analysis, do I need the premises quickly, have I someone else lined up, will I recover costs or what will it cost me, what are the chances of success...and is there a possibility of just buying off the whole headache cheaply, saying to the tenant you'll forego pursuing him for arrears if they get out, or giving the caravan owners a whack of cash to move on and put up concrete bollards after them.

But when a person is squatting in a building, not for money or for the shelter or the comfort, but because they have a cause, think it gets trickier. Of course negotiations are always relevant and welcome, but think TC would have preferred first to establish very clearly and quickly that the law was on their side, and not to go into negotiations with the occupants thinking they had TC over a barrel. Let them know the law requires them out, then start the talks...which is what I think happened.

Wheely

mike kelly wrote: »

it was a CIVIL case, not a criminal one. Also, laws are broken all the time, just look at the planning laws. People who illegally demolish buildings never end up in court. This should never have gone to court in the first place. The guards should have evicted them and left it at that. Just more easy money for the judiciary.

The judiciary don't work on a commission basis.

Wheely

Mario007 wrote: »

even if it was a civil case, they still need to be punished for neglecting the law. the law is there to prevent anarchy and must be fully implemented. right now the impression is that you can break the law but as long as you get enough people to protest for your case you'll get away with it. these people deliberately refused to listen to the high court decission which is legaly binding and they should be punished for that.

What about those who breach the companies acts, or EC competition laws, or planning and development laws, or even those from the AB socioeconomic grouping who are responsible causing infinitely more damage to the economy and the society at large. Why not have a crack at them before going after workers looking for an extra 3 weeks per annum in a redundancy package.

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

His bonus IIRC.

Got a source for that?

Wheely

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness to Judge Peart, and his colleagues in the High Court, he can't don a cape and mask at night and bring bankers to justice.

He can only deal with cases brought before him.

And nothing he said was remotely wrong. In fact, if he were to use the opportunity to talk about bankers or the price of the pint or whatever else was wrong with the country but had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the case before him, we'd be scratching our heads.

Yeah in fairness to them they can only deal with the cases brought before them. Doesn't stop the SC kicking Carrol to touch in the hope that someone will save him. But lock up those workers lest anarchy reign. Give me a break.

Wheely

Wheely wrote: »

What about those who breach the companies acts, or EC competition laws, or planning and development laws, or even those from the AB socioeconomic grouping who are responsible causing infinitely more damage to the economy and the society at large. Why not have a crack at them before going after workers looking for an extra 3 weeks per annum in a redundancy package.

Not sure why Thomas Cook should have a crack at them.

If you feel they have done you wrong, why don't you start proceedings? The High Court Central Office are a helpful bunch and will help you with filing the papers.

In the meantime, you're argument is as thin as saying 'in the same week the High Court orders Thomas Cook employees to leave the premises, the killers of Jerry McCabe were relased'. There is no connection between the issues.

Wheely

irish_bob wrote: »

agreed , if this kind of thing was encouraged or appeased , it would frighten off foreign investment

Jesus.......

Yeah, it's the TC workers occupying offices that are frightening off foreign investment. LOL:rolleyes:

Wheely

Wheely wrote: »

Doesn't stop the SC kicking Carrol to touch in the hope that someone will save him.

Yes because that case and the Thomas Cook case are the exact same. There is no difference between the law of insolvency and the law of trespass, so why DID those cases get treated differently? I'm scratching my head.

And as well as the garda killers, I see even Ronnie Biggs is getting out. Oh ho, this is an international effort to nail the Thomas Cook workers. There has got to be a conspiracy somewhere.

Wheely

sovtek wrote: »

I wonder how I can be in contempt of a court I have never set foot in nor disobeyed an order from?

Scandalising the court it's called. Learn a bit about the law. Maybe then you won't wonder how you can be in breach of it when you are.

Wheely

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure why Thomas Cook should have a crack at them.

If you feel they have done you wrong, why don't you start proceedings? The High Court Central Office are a helpful bunch and will help you with filing the papers.

In the meantime, you're argument is as thin as saying 'in the same week the High Court orders Thomas Cook employees to leave the premises, the killers of Jerry McCabe were relased'. There is no connection between the issues.

Give me a break. Even you can't be blind enough to see the optics of this farce. High court orders issued at lightning speed, photos of cops dragging pregnant women who've just been laid off out of an office they worked in for nine years at 5 am in the morning. Liam Carrol's examinership kicked to touch again and again, cops mosey in Anglo months after the debacle breaks, where an dog in the street can see the Companies Acts have been breached, for a photo op and then do nothing while Seanie plays golf in SA and eats in Shanahans.

And don't be a goon, you knew I wasn't suggesting TC go after them. I'm talking about the State machinery, there is a distinct image here of the velvet glove dealing with the bankers, developers etc and the iron fist for the workers. People in this country are angry, they see images like the ones outside TC next to "more time for Liam Carrol" and they wonder why no Donegal Gardai never did a day in prison, or Micheal Lynnes passport wasn't confiscated, or Breifne O Brien's wife has the brass neck to ask for 4000 a week living expenses and so on and so on and so on.

No connection? Everything is connected!

Wheely

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes because that case and the Thomas Cook case are the exact same. There is no difference between the law of insolvency and the law of trespass, so why DID those cases get treated differently? I'm scratching my head.

And as well as the garda killers, I see even Ronnie Biggs is getting out. Oh ho, this is an international effort to nail the Thomas Cook workers. There has got to be a conspiracy somewhere.

Don't talk to me like I'm some sort of lefty nut marching arm in arm with Richard Boyd Barret into the hellfire. I'm not.

Never did I mention a global conspiracy to nail workers, I merely pointed out a glaring difference in the way the way the state machinery deal with some people and not others. And I don't mean those party to insolvency proceedings and those party to trespass.

Trying to make out I'm a conspiracy nut just because they're easier for you to discredit is pathetic.