Hunger Strike for your job?

The-Rigger wrote: »

I wouldn't make the presumption based on that, no.

Exactly, I agree with the above.

I found this story really bizarre when it came on the news.

How on earth does a hunger strike related to an employment dispute?
It takes away from their cause in my eyes because that sort of reaction leads me to feel that the strikers in question aren't reasonable or realistic.
I'd find it hard to trust their version of events.

I couldn't disagree more. I was referring more to the 400 marchers that are supporting them. You can't honestly say with so many supporters and to go on hunger strike themselves that they're actually guilty of something. As it happens the workers are totally innocent anyway and the Labour Court had actually recommended the workers be reinstated. The hunger strike is obviously a last resort, after going through all other channels.

The case really is that complicated. I know certain people would prefer a hunger strike to be solely an act that's exclusive to their Republican Heroes, and probably hate to see it cheapened by a few food factory workers, but it's their livelihoods we're talking about here. Not to mention being victims of a total injustice. Not as glamorous as 'a Bobby Sands' with all the history and everything, and it might seem a little extreme alright, but it really is a last resort for the workers.

The Irish often get criticised for not being rebellious enough, compared to say the French. Then we get people who aren't prepared to be victims of a total act of injustice, and we get the "I laughed when I heard this on the radio" people.

Some muppet attaches some porn attachments, which I don't know about until I open the email - am I guilty of downloading porn?

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Depends on the companies internal IT policy. Most likely if they do not have filters in place then you'd have a case for wrongful dismissal.

Can you hear that, doesn't it ring lovely..... wrongful dismissal.

No, wait- lets go on Hunger Strike instead.......

I'm sure if these people had a case they would be pursuing it through proper channels. I'm a solicitor and see people with all manner of reactions when you tell them, f*ck off you have no case.

Me thinks these people are enacting just such an OTT waa waa woe is me reaction. I have zero sympathy for them.

http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations

PARTIES :
GREEN ISLE FOODS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:

1. Dismissal of three members


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns what the Union claims is the wrongful dismissal of three Craftworkers. The workers had 16, 10 and 7 years' service respectively. The Union's case is as follows: in December, 2008, the Company made available on its IT system a folder called " Boardroom". Direct access was given to one engineer but it was available to anyone else in the Company by mapping the drive. In March, 2009, the engineer became concerned about a file which showed the planned termination of employment of six maintenance and he showed the file to his manager who in turn reported it to senior management. Company letters were issued to the engineer and another worker asking them to disclose their full knowledge of the "Boardroom" file and warning them that it was a serious matter which could lead to their dismissal. The Union replied to the Company stating that it was a Company error which gave the workers access to the file. Some days later the workers were dismissed.

The matter was referred to the High Court and proceedings continued for some months. In June, 2009, the Company started separate proceedings against three workers, including the two already mentioned, for having inappropriate material in their e.mail. The third worker was also suspended. At this stage the Union was seeking to have the issue of the "Boardroom" closed as it was taking so long. The High Court report issued in June, 2009, and, in the event, the three workers were dismissed on 10th July, 2009. The Union appealed the dismissals but, following an investigation, they were upheld. Pickets were placed on the Company's premises.

The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 6th October, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th December, 2009. The Company did not attend the hearing but was represented by IBEC. In a statement to the Court, the Company maintained that it does not engage with Unions and that the Court was not the appropriate forum to hear the case. Its case is that the workers committed serious transgressions and that they were afforded all rights in the investigation and appeal hearings undertaken by the Company.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The dismissals by the Company were unwarranted and unreasonable.

2. The workers in the Company do not have access to the internet. They should not be penalised for e.mails forwarded from outside the Company. Following an investigation it was found that the I.T System at the Company was not secure or properly monitored.

3. All the maintenance staff have suffered a loss of wages through the dispute which has lasted 13 weeks so far.


RECOMMENDATION :

Having considered the uncontested submission of the Union the Court recommends as follows:-
1. On the information before it the Court is satisfied that the dismissals in issue were unjustified.

2. In the circumstances of this case the normal approach of the Court would be to recommend that the workers dismissed be reinstated without loss of pay.

3. The Court notes that the Union have revised its claim and is now seeking a financial settlement for those concerned.

4. The Court recommends that the parties engage, through an intermediary if necessary, with a view to agreeing an acceptable compensation package. This engagement should continue for one week following the date of this recommendation. If final agreement is not reached the matter should be referred back to the Court.

5. The current dispute should be ended on the terms set out above and there should be an immediate return to work. There should be no victimisation of any type on either side.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
8th December, 2009. ______________________
CON. Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.

A DISPUTE between a food manufacturer and four of its employees over the alleged accessing of confidential company information is expected to be settled at the High Court today.

Green Isle Foods Ltd, Naas, Co Kildare, had earlier this week obtained a temporary injunction requiring Declan Foley, John Recto, Colum Beirne and John Peters to maintain the confidentiality of information which allegedly included commercially sensitive data on company profitability and a plan for a small number of redundancies.

The four were suspended on full pay last Friday after it was alleged they accidentally accessed the information and it was allegedly downloaded on to a USB memory stick.

The four had refused to sign undertakings sought by the company in relation to the information and claimed such undertakings would be used as the basis of disciplinary proceedings against them.

The Technical, Engineering Electrical Union (TEEU), which represents the workers, served notice of industrial action as a result of the suspensions.

Yesterday, the High Court was initially asked by counsel for the company to continue the temporary order on confidentiality and also asked the four staff provide information of the identity of any third parties who may have been given the information or how it might be accessed.

Marguerite Bolger, for Green Isle, said the information involved was “incredibly sensitive” and included share price information which might require the stock exchange be informed.

Lawyers for the four staff asked for an adjournment as they had only just obtained legal advice.

The lawyers asked for time to respond to what was described as a number of inaccuracies in sworn statements provided by the company.

Following an adjournment and discussions between the parties, Ms Bolger said a number of undertakings had been drawn up which, if the staff agreed to them, would mean the matter was resolved.

Ms Justice Mary Laffoy adjourned the case to today for the undertakings to be finalised and continued the injunction in the interim.