porn images at centre of Green Isle row

shqipshume

GARDAI have been given copies of almost 700 pornographic images at the centre of a row between Green Isle foods and a union, which has resulted in a six-month picket outside the company's offices.:D

There was a formal request last Friday by gardai and images were handed over to local gardai in Naas. These images came in over a period of two years. All 700 images came from one point, before being stored and sent on the system to other people internally and externally."

Ah the stuff that crawls out from under the rock.Watch all of you,you will be caught :P

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-given-porn-images-at-centre-of-green-isle-row-2084145.html

Dravokivich

my mates know not to send it to my work e-mail...

El Guapo!

pics or GTFO...............

WindSock

Dean09 wrote: »

pics or GTFO...............

K then.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

So whats the story, they're all going on strike cos 3 people got fired for sending porn around the office?

Think most places would fire you in fairness, probably not the wisest thing they could have done

sbsquarepants

How do you explain this one to the missus.

Striker: There'll be no wages for a while dear, i'm going on strike, actually f.uck it, i'm so upset about what them firing poor auld johnny i'm going on hunger strike!
Missus: Jesus, they must have really treated him badly. Why was he fired again?
Striker: For absolutely nothing, he just forwarded a mere 700 porno pics!
Wife: Eat your f.ucking breakfast and get to work!

chuck eastwood

They are screwed one way or the other. now they are dragging there familys through the mud but they dont have much choice. Who would hire them...so why did you leave your last job emmmmmmmmmmmm. I said in another post that i worked in there on and off as a contractor and these guys are tossers and make no mistake the unions called the strike not the staff

AnonoBoy

Watch the sympathy ooze our of people for this one.

flowersagogo

a lot of worn out,pale faced garda about today-must be strong stuff

deise blue

Eliana Glamorous Knob wrote: »

So whats the story, they're all going on strike cos 3 people got fired for sending porn around the office?

Think most places would fire you in fairness, probably not the wisest thing they could have done

Green Isle have stated that the images are not illegal.
The Labour Court have ruled that the dismissals were unfair and advised that the workers in question should be reinstated or alternatively be paid €160,000 euros.
However the company have decided to ignore the state's industrial mechanisms.

CreepingDeath

Feckin unions think there should be no such thing as a company code of discipline.

Best thing for Green Isle to do is slip in a few child pics they hand to the guards and rightly screw the strikers.

chuck eastwood

Strong or not. How they expect to get away with that is beyond me and its an abuse of the whole idea of the union to back these guys. What the hell would you have to do before the union tell's you your on your own

chuck eastwood

deise blue wrote: »

Green Isle have stated that the images are not illegal.
The Labour Court have ruled that the dismissals were unfair and advised that the workers in question should be reinstated or alternatively be paid €160,000 euros.
However the company have decided to ignore the state's industrial mechanisms.

Are you taking the piss. 700 pic's, if it was your company what would you do. Are they paid to look at porn. how can you justify this. they don't even have the balls to come out and say sorry they made a mistake. They hide behind a union and risk the closure of the factory. A disgrace

Noopti

chuck eastwood wrote: »

Strong or not. How they expect to get away with that is beyond me and its an abuse of the whole idea of the union to back these guys. What the hell would you have to do before the union tell's you your on your own

A mate of mine was eventually ditched by the union but only after about 10 years of constantly taking the piss in work (mainly with regards to sick leave).

Zulu

Folks, the labour court ruled in their favor - not the companys.

That means that a case was presented to a independant judge who reviewed all the facts (something people here don't have) and decided that the employees were unfairly dismissed.

They are all the facts that you know, yet some of you still believe the employees are guilty of something! Incredible.

bette

Zulu wrote: »

Folks, the labour court ruled in their favor - not the companys.

That means that a case was presented to a independant judge who reviewed all the facts (something people here don't have) and decided that the employees were unfairly dismissed.

They are all the facts that you know, yet some of you still believe the employees are guilty of something! Incredible.

Nail on the head!

How many of you guys surf on the internet in your own time and on your own computer?

flowersagogo

the out come of all this porn is in the hands of the gardai now

sbsquarepants

flowersagogo wrote: »

the out come of all this porn is in the hands of the gardai now

Ha ha, i bet it is!!

deise blue

chuck eastwood wrote: »

Are you taking the piss. 700 pic's, if it was your company what would you do. Are they paid to look at porn. how can you justify this. they don't even have the balls to come out and say sorry they made a mistake. They hide behind a union and risk the closure of the factory. A disgrace

Of course I'm not taking the piss !
The Labour Court examined the issues after all parties involved made their cases and decided that the company were in the wrong.
The Labour Court had access to far more information than that you or I have gleaned from the papers.
Hopefully Green Isle will see sense and abide by the ruling of the state body.

Guy:Incognito

deise blue wrote: »

Green Isle have stated that the images are not illegal.
.

Porn isnt illegal. Doesnt mean you company will be happy about you looking at it on their time, on their hardware and passing it your mates in their office.

No looking at porn has been a standard part of contracts for people that will be workign with computers since before the internet.

syklops

Will the guards list of perks never end?

Now their getting free porn.

AnonoBoy

The illegality of it isn't really an issue, is it?

It's not illegal for me to be drunk but if I come into work drunk I shouldn't be too surprised if I get fired, should I?







[edit]Note to self: Come to work drunk tomorrow to test this theory[/edit]

TheZohanS

Zulu wrote: »

Folks, the labour court ruled in their favor - not the companys.

That means that a case was presented to a independant judge who reviewed all the facts (something people here don't have) and decided that the employees were unfairly dismissed.

They are all the facts that you know, yet some of you still believe the employees are guilty of something! Incredible.

Incorrect.

The Union brought Green Isle foods to the Labour Court, GIF do not recognise the Union so they did not attend.

Since Green Isle Foods did not attend the court and make a representation the Labour Court found in favour of the Union.

The Labour Court were not presented with all the facts.

Zulu

Fair enough. Let me rephrase...

Folks, the labour court ruled in their favor - not the companys.

That means that a case was presented to a independant judge who reviewed all the facts presented to him/her (something people here don't have) and decided that the employees were unfairly dismissed.

They are all the facts that you know, yet some of you still believe the employees are guilty of something! Incredible.

Noopti

Zulu wrote: »

They are all the facts that you know, yet some of you still believe the employees are guilty of something! Incredible.

They are guilty of being complete tools to be fair. So they are guilty of "something".

sbsquarepants

Fact is, it is generaly easier to win an unfair dismissal case if you've been fired, than it is for the company. It is very difficult to fire someone legally. I have personal experience of 2 cases over the years where the fired person won damages both times. Both cases hinged on procedures being followed, ie verbal warnings being followed by writen warnings and so on. In 1 case the employee snapped and threatened to kill the general manager, got fired, claimed unfair dismissal and won 5 grand in damages, all because he wasn't warned in writing not to threaten the life of his boss!!
The labour court is not infallible, even when they have the full facts

Zulu

Noopti wrote: »

They are guilty of being complete tools to be fair.

Fair enough this is After Hours...
But in the event that you actually believe what youre posting: how is that fair? Have you anything other than ill informeded opinion to back up that assertion?

deise blue

TheZohan wrote: »

Incorrect.

The Union brought Green Isle foods to the Labour Court, GIF do not recognise the Union so they did not attend.

Since Green Isle Foods did not attend the court and make a representation the Labour Court found in favour of the Union.

The Labour Court were not presented with all the facts.

Green Isle were represented however at the Labour Court by IBEC who were briefed by Green Isle but did not challenge the Union's assertions.
One of the uncontested assertions was that the workers do not have access to the internet and as such should not be penalised for emails sent to them , these workers did not download pornagraphic images.

TheZohanS

Zulu wrote: »

Fair enough. Let me rephrase...

Folks, the labour court ruled in their favor - not the companys.

That means that a case was presented to a independant judge who reviewed all the facts presented to him/her (something people here don't have) and decided that the employees were unfairly dismissed.

They are all the facts that you know, yet some of you still believe the employees are guilty of something! Incredible.

The Labour Court only heard one side, the Unions side, of the story.

sbsquarepants

deise blue wrote: »

these workers did not download pornagraphic images.

But they did forward them, didn't they?
So it's not like they're innocent victims or anything.

humanji

deise blue wrote: »

Green Isle were represented however at the Labour Court by IBEC who were briefed by Green Isle but did not challenge the Union's assertions.
One of the uncontested assertions was that the workers do not have access to the internet and as such should not be penalised for emails sent to them , these workers did not download pornagraphic images.

Is the problem not that they downloaded or recieved porn, but sent it on to others?

flowersagogo

the animals in this porn are victims too. or were about to be...

Zulu

the zohan wrote:

The Labour Court only heard one side, the Unions side, of the story.

...you mean the people who were unfairly dismissed, right?

Noopti

Zulu wrote: »

Fair enough this is After Hours...
But in the event that you actually believe what youre posting: how is that fair? Have you anything other than ill informeded opinion to back up that assertion?

How is what fair? I just said they are tools. And the reason I think they are tools is that they get a bee in their bonnet because their employer didn't take too kindly to them throwing around porn images to each other.
So they decide to go on hunger strike to highlight it. Tools.

flowersagogo

wow! someone who actually seen this stuff! sorry zulu did'nt notice your quote

Zulu

Noopti wrote: »

How is what fair? I just said they are tools. And the reason I think they are tools is that they get a bee in their bonnet because their employer didn't take too kindly to them throwing around porn images to each other.
So they decide to go on hunger strike to highlight it. Tools.

Right so, they are tools because they dont have internet access, and they recieved an e-mail (which they didn't send), for which it appears they got fired, and they went to court, and the court ruled in their favour, and the company refused to acknowledge the court. That make them tools? :rolleyes:

TheZohanS

Zulu wrote: »

...you mean the people who were unfairly dismissed, right?

The ones that allegedly downloaded and reproduced porn?

I wonder how the Labour Court would have ruled had they been presented with the full facts.

I suppose we'll find out the full story in time.

All 700 images came from one point, before being stored and sent on the system to other people internally and externally

Zulu

that could mean ANYTHING.

All we know is that the labour ruled that they were UNFAIRLY dismissed.

Guy:Incognito

Zulu wrote: »

that could mean ANYTHING.

All we know is that the labour ruled that they were UNFAIRLY dismissed.

You sound like a staunch union man. "X happened so I will be unwavering in my opinion and just keep repeaing the line"

brianthebard

TheZohan wrote: »

Incorrect.

The Union brought Green Isle foods to the Labour Court, GIF do not recognise the Union so they did not attend.

Since Green Isle Foods did not attend the court and make a representation the Labour Court found in favour of the Union.

The Labour Court were not presented with all the facts.

Why does Green Isle not recognise the Union? It has about 40,000 members, and was founded in 1992 after the amalgamation of two older unions whose origins dated back to the 20s. What possible reason could they have to not recognise the workers Unions except as a means of avoiding the ruling of the Court?

Zulu

Stekelly wrote: »

You sound like a staunch union man. "X happened so I will be unwavering in my opinion and just keep repeaing the line"

...and I'm anything but!

That's the funny thing about ill-informed & ignorant opinions - they're generally completly wrong.

TheZohanS

brianthebard wrote: »

Why does Green Isle not recognise the Union? It has about 40,000 members, and was founded in 1992 after the amalgamation of two older unions whose origins dated back to the 20s. What possible reason could they have to not recognise the workers Unions except as a means of avoiding the ruling of the Court?

I have no idea and I'm not taking any side on this one.

However:

There is no legal obligation on an employer to negotiate with a union on behalf of an employee member, unless previously agreed. This does not prevent a dispute about trade union recognition from being a lawful dispute.

Source.

Amalgam

One of the top staff at an Irish Bank was fired for 'looking' at an escort site. Employers love this kind of carry on, very handy if they want to turf someone out.

You'd want to be a bit thick to look at anything dubious online, at your work place, use the IT assets for umm.. 'work', bring your own Smart phone/Netbook/Laptop/3G Dongle etc.. along if you want internet access that won't land you into trouble.

AnonoBoy

Zulu wrote: »

that could mean ANYTHING.

All we know is that the labour ruled that they were UNFAIRLY dismissed.

INDEED. Employees were RULED to HAVE been unfairly dismissed.

But WE will not know THE full story until it comes out.























(I just don't get how to use block capitals for emphasis)

sbsquarepants

Zulu wrote: »

that could mean ANYTHING.

What else could it mean?

It means they sent on a load of porn, it couldn't possibly mean anything else.

brianthebard

TheZohan wrote: »

I have no idea and I'm not taking any side on this one.

You presented an argument in defence of the employer in this case without acknowledging that they may have had ulterior motives for not recognising a well established Trade Union. They may not be under any legal obligation to negotiate with a Union, but it certainly does not present the employer in a good light when they refuse.

Chairman Meow

Was any of it any good? I bet it was just loads of tranny porn

geeky

Two facts, based here on professional experience (part of my job is to know about the Labour court).

In unfair dismissal cases, the burden of proof lies with the employer. In other words, you need to demonstrate that the dismissal was fair and reasonable. As Green Isle did not participate in the process, they had two chances of doing this. Therefore, the Labour Court's ruling is limited as a benchmark of what is right and wrong in the case.

However, it is useful in that it kind of eliminates the 'porn' issue from the substance of the discussion. Two of the three lads, it appears, had been booted out for something unrelated, and the pornography issue was only brought in during 2009.

Here is the actual labour court ruling: http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations

From my perspective, it shows how limited we actually are when it comes to workers rights in this country. Labour Court Recommendations have fk all legal power.

dvpower

geeky wrote: »

From my perspective, it shows how limited we actually are when it comes to workers rights in this country. Labour Court Recommendations have fk all legal power.

I don't know why the Labour Court calls itself the Labour Court.
Form the About Us page of its website:

Labour Court wrote:

The Labour Court is not a court of law.

The union should just bring an unfair dismissals case against the company (if they feel thay can win).

geeky

dvpower wrote: »

I don't know why the Labour Court calls itself the Labour Court.

Sadly, they don't chose the name - the Government/'social partners' do.

dvpower wrote: »

The union should just bring an unfair dismissals case against the company (if they feel thay can win).

It went to the High Court (see judgement). Green Isle won.

TheZohanS

brianthebard wrote: »

You presented an argument in defence of the employer in this case without acknowledging that they may have had ulterior motives for not recognising a well established Trade Union. They may not be under any legal obligation to negotiate with a Union, but it certainly does not present the employer in a good light when they refuse.

If you read my posts again you will see that I merely presented facts in the case, I was not defending anyone. As a moderator it sometimes falls to us to make sure that any information that is presented as facts are indeed factual. We have a small matter of libel to look after.

In this case Green Isle Foods do not recognise the Union, which is their right. So they do not legally have to present themselves at a Labour Court hearing with said Union.

On hearing one side of the story the Labour Court found in favour of the Union, they were not presented with both sides of the case.

To call Green Isle Foods dismissal of these workers "unfair" is libelous, however one can say that the Labour Court, upon hearing evidence from one side, found the dismissals unfair is OK.