Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

porn images at centre of Green Isle row

245

Comments

  • #32
    flowersagogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭flowersagogo


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


  • #33
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #34
    Noopti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    flowersagogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭flowersagogo


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


  • #36
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #38
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    that could mean ANYTHING.

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


  • #39
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭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"


  • #40
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #41
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    Amalgam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,030 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • #45
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    Chairman Meow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭Chairman Meow


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


  • #48
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭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).


  • #50
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    deise blue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭deise blue


    TheZohan wrote: »
    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.

    As already pointed out IBEC represented Green Isle at the Labour Court and raised no objections to any aspect of the Union's case.
    It seems hypocritical that Green Isle are members of IBEC who are after all the employers Trade Union and yet fail to recognise the right of a Trade Union to represent their employees.


  • #53
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    deise blue wrote: »
    As already pointed out IBEC represented Green Isle at the Labour Court and raised no objections to any aspect of the Union's case.
    It seems hypocritical that Green Isle are members of IBEC who are after all the employers Trade Union and yet fail to recognise the right of a Trade Union to represent their employees.

    It would appear that the case made by IBEC was that the Labour Court wasn't the appropriate forum and, for that reason, they didn't present the substantive case there.
    Labour Court wrote:
    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.


  • #54
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    deise blue wrote: »
    It seems hypocritical that Green Isle are members of IBEC who are after all the employers Trade Union and yet fail to recognise the right of a Trade Union to represent their employees.

    IBEC are not a Trades Union.


  • #55
    BaconZombie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,814 ✭✭✭BaconZombie


    This is way you should ALWAYS leave gifts of Snacks & Alcohol {slab of good beer, bottles of Vodka,whiskey,Jagr,etc} for your local BOFH...
    shqipshume wrote: »
    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


  • #56
    blueser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,894 ✭✭✭✭blueser


    bette wrote: »
    Nail on the head!

    How many of you guys surf on the internet in your own time and on your own computer?
    Nail on the head. My own computer during my own time. Not when I'm supposed to be working. Or am I missing something?
    :confused:


  • #57
    Blowfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    Zulu wrote: »
    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:
    The articles are reporting it as multiple emails, which they then stored locally and sent on to others.

    If it was a single mail with an attachment that they accidentally opened while not realising it was porn, then yes, they'd deserve some sympathy. By all accounts though it was 700 images over the course of 2 years from the same source which they then forwarded on to others. Whether or not they had direct access to the internet is pretty much irrelevant as it's not like they wouldn't be fully aware of what the content being sent on to them is. You could hardly put them as even remotely innocent if this is the case.


  • #58
    WalterMitty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,582 ✭✭✭WalterMitty


    Labour court is just another legacy of the failed social partnership era. The main members are appointed by the minister and under bertie;s reign they just became biased towards the workers and unions side of arguments as Bertie wanted union appeasers everywhere.


  • #59
    flowersagogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭flowersagogo


    when this stuff hits the shelves its gonna sell real good.my money's on the sunday-**** to publish first...


  • #60
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    I do have to laugh at people posting on Boards.ie, most during office hours, most employed ( unlike mesself at the moment) defending the dismissal of people for using the internet for anything other than work.

    The porn wasnt illegal. Posting on this forum is as much a transgression as posting porn at work. It's all NSFW.

    Most of you are saying that you should be fired from your job.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    deise blue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭deise blue


    dvpower wrote: »
    IBEC are not a Trades Union.

    INCORRECT

    IBEC is a registered Trade Union .

    Always has been back to it's original predecessors the Federation of Irish Employers who were registered as a Trade Union under the Trade Union Act 1941.

    Mind you IBEC have never advertised this fact !


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement