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

124

Comments

  • #92
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    geeky wrote: »
    Just a few points man:

    From my reading of the Labour Court judgement (linked above) the High Court upheld the dismissals in June 2009. If I've read this wrong, I'm happy to retract.
    I'm afraid you must have read it wrong because the IT article is from April.
    The Labour court recommendation doesn't mention IBEC/Green Isle's case. This is unusual (the court normally mentions the cases of both), and suggests that neither the company nor IBEC engaged with it.
    I didn't bother looking for a detailed link on LC case because there's been a lot more posts about that than other stuff. Regardless of whether IBEC or GI turned up to the LC it shows a petulance and pettiness about the company that they would be a member of IBEC but not equally recognise the workers TU. The reason why is clearly because they would have to enter into negotiations with the workers and their union and pay out compensation. GI are clearly in the wrong in this case.


  • #93
    omega666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 622 ✭✭✭omega666


    Mullins07 wrote: »
    As I wrote in the other thread, the truth is coming out.

    On Sunday, a Green Isle director finally admitted that the employees did not have Internet access on RTE's 'This Week' programme. He also admitted that the adult material was sent in from an anonymous source to employees email in-boxes.

    The only defenders of this slander are the remaining employees worried for their jobs and PR companies paid to spin lies.



    they were being acused of storing and distributing it not browing the internet for it. while you cant be done for receving emails of porn as it not your fault if someone sends it to you, but if you then decide to foward it to anyone else using company email/resource then you can be done.

    the problem here is media giving national coverage to these fools and giving
    a bad name to people who have a legimate reason to go on strike.


  • #94
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    69 wrote: »
    In other news:- The Garda representative body is demanding compensation for severe wrist strain for a number of its staff who were exposed to the pictures in the course of their duties.

    They shudda kept their pants up!


  • #95
    cruizer101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I'm afraid you must have read it wrong because the IT article is from April.

    I agree with geeky here, the two dismissals of workers who accessed and distributed a company file took place in April and this decison was upheld by the high court.

    At the same time the company started separte proceedings against 3 workers, including the two already dismissed, for issues reagarding porn.

    So from what I can tell the first two workers were fired for issues separate to the porn anyway and this decision was upheld by High court.

    Also from the LC decision: 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.


  • #96
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    brianthebard wrote: »
    You keep repeating that, but without any details.

    This, from the Labout Court website (no link available)
    The Labour Court wrote:
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Mullins07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭Mullins07


    dvpower wrote: »
    This, from the Labout Court website (no link available)

    from the same article:
    http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labcourtweb.nsf/7a18f8963dd5836380256a01005bb358/80256a770034a2ab8025768500412bbb?OpenDocument


    1. On the information before it the Court is satisfied that the dismissals in issue were unjustified.


  • #98
    Mullins07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭Mullins07


    dvpower wrote: »
    This, from the Labout Court website (no link available)

    You did not post the link to the article in its entirety.
    Why was that?


  • #99
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Mullins07 wrote: »
    You did not post the link to the article in its entirety.
    Why was that?

    I was asked a specific question about the High Court case. I posted the paragraph pertaining to this information; and the paragraph directly before it and after it for context.
    Mullins07 wrote: »
    from the same article:
    http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labcourtweb.nsf/7a18f8963dd5836380256a01005bb358/80256a770034a2ab8025768500412bbb?OpenDocument


    1. On the information before it the Court is satisfied that the dismissals in issue were unjustified.

    Its clear that the Labour Court came down in favour of the Union. But, the company did not present a case to the Labour Court (as is their entitlement), so its hardly surprising.

    It is also clear that the Labour Court is not a court of law, so what they say is not a ruling in law; it is just a recommendation.
    The company are not legally obliged to act on the Labour Court recommendation; they may be morally or ethically obliged, but that is a different question.

    What the workers ought to do is to exhaust all legal avenues to resolve the dispute and if this fails to satisfy them they should lobby government to have the law changed. If after all of these avenues are exhausted, they still feel that this is a cause worth dying for, then, by all means, go on hunger strike.

    But unless a hunger strike is the very last option open to them, it is a selfish act.


  • #100
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Slightly off topic, but who here actually believes for 1 second that these guys are REALLY on hunger strike. I for one do not ever expect to hear that one or all of these guys has died or even become malnurished. It's a ridiculous attention grabbing stunt. If you take the likes of Bobby Sands for example, the level of dedication required to do what he done is super human, whether you agree with his cause or not, no sane person could fail to be impressed by his sheer dedication to his beliefs. Now - you've been sacked for forwarding porn, confidential info, whatever. Rightly or wrongly, you feel peeved. Do you starve to death to prove the point? My arse you do


  • #101
    Mullins07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭Mullins07


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Slightly off topic, but who here actually believes for 1 second that these guys are REALLY on hunger strike. I for one do not ever expect to hear that one or all of these guys has died or even become malnurished. It's a ridiculous attention grabbing stunt. If you take the likes of Bobby Sands for example, the level of dedication required to do what he done is super human, whether you agree with his cause or not, no sane person could fail to be impressed by his sheer dedication to his beliefs. Now - you've been sacked for forwarding porn, confidential info, whatever. Rightly or wrongly, you feel peeved. Do you starve to death to prove the point? My arse you do

    I can 100% verify that the hunger striker that is entering the 3rd week tomorrow has not eaten since February 17th. He is beginning to show the effects of it negatively and it is extremely worrying for his family.

    It is an indication of the way they have been treated that they have decided to take this course of action. I can assure you that, sadly, it is genuine.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    I agree with geeky here, the two dismissals of workers who accessed and distributed a company file took place in April and this decison was upheld by the high court.

    Geeky said that the dismissals happened in June, the high court case happened in April. According to the LC link posted on the previous page the dismissals began on the 10th July, several months after the HC case.
    dvpower wrote: »
    This, from the Labout Court website (no link available)
    Do you even read your own links? The LC link (how the **** can you take information from a website but not have a link to that website btw?) clearly says that the High Court case involved the confidentiality issue of this so-called boardroom file. That is all it was about. If you had read the IT link you'd see this was the case.
    Then a month afterwards the company dismissed the workers.


  • #103
    zero86r
    Closed Accounts Posts: 161 ✭✭zero86r


    Yeah he's on hunger strike alright, it is genuine


  • #104
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    Terry wrote: »
    Prove it.

    Anyway, my major problem with this is:



    http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/feb/21/this-is-like-being-back-in-the-1970s/?q=hunger strike

    What's the deal the the Polish and Filipino workers getting off scot free and the English workers being run out of town?

    Bunch of ****ing hypocrites.

    I asked the dude running the Facebook page about this and his reply was that the Polish people are ok because they have suffered occupation like the Irish people.

    WTF?

    So it's ok to run a bunch of English scabs out of Naas, but the Polish are grand?

    The average English person is going through the same crap as us due to imcompetent goverments. The dude running the Facebook page is either afraid of being called racist, or is anti-British. Either way, he's a ****íng pussy.

    RSF are very heavily involved. What else did you expect?


  • #105
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    You've posted that several times but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, can you kindly provide some evidence?


  • #106
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    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

    This is confusing. What did ( the matter) the high court judge on - as far as I can see it is the confidentiality of the BoardRoom files and nothing else. And it is clear that the separate proceedings relating to the porn were unrelated to the original case.

    It is also obvious that the porn was a sting. People without access to the internet get a porn file and distribute it ( and has this been proven?) just after a series of court cases involving the same players.

    A for whether RSF are involved, that is unrelated to the claims of the workers or the morality of the case. Reminds me of a case in England where Italians were used to break a strike and the BNP turned up - they were eventually driven out. That fact that nationalists may use a worker's strike for political gain is not symptomatic of whether the workers are correct, or not, arguing that it invalidates the case is merely an argument to guilt by association.

    so stick to the facts - which are confusing, I admit.


  • #107
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    brianthebard wrote: »
    You've posted that several times but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, can you kindly provide some evidence?

    You asking me?:confused:


  • #108
    KrazyKazzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46 ✭KrazyKazzz


    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.


    Couldnt agree more... And who here can say they have never received an email to work with a pic of someone showing off a bit too much, and they pass it in????? 'Porn' as they put it, can be broken down in to sooo many catagories.. Just because there maybe a bare chested man and a semi naked women in a 'funny' joke email, does this give a company the right to call this porn??? No, cause its not.. but this is what you are up against now... Everything from showing some boob to showing a naked body is now classed as porn.. what a loada rubbish!!!


  • #109
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »
    You asking me?:confused:

    Yes that's why I posted below you.


  • #110
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Yes that's why I posted below you.

    No bother.

    Green Isle dispute is battle in economic war
    Statement by the President of Republican Sinn Féin Des Dalton

    During a visit to the striking Green Isle workers in Naas Co Kildare on February 26 -where he met with the two hunger striking workers Jim Wells and John Guinan (February 26)- the Kildare based President of Republican Sinn Féin Des Dalton pledged the strikers the continued support of Republican Sinn Féin and repeated his call for a boycott of all Green Isle products while the dispute continues.

    “The fact that this strike has lasted so long is an indictment not just of Green Isle but of the so-called labour laws which we are told protect workers. As in this case employers have been given licence to treat workers, as they will let rulings of the Labour Court without any consequences for them. If workers were to take a similar course they would soon find the forces of the state including the courts arrayed against both them and their union.

    “The Green Isle workers need practical support and a boycott of Green Isle products would put immediate pressure on the company.

    “Support for the march in Naas today (February 27) is essential in upping the ante on a company, which has shown only contempt for the rights of their workers. It is time for working people to take to the streets in what is an important battle in an economic war. An injury to one is the concern of all.” Des Dalton said.

    http://www.rsf-kildare.ie/


  • #111
    KrazyKazzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46 ✭KrazyKazzz


    69 wrote: »
    In other news:- The Garda representative body is demanding compensation for severe wrist strain for a number of its staff who were exposed to the pictures in the course of their duties.

    Pathetic!! Loser


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    Ok, now we know that some member of RSF has hitched himself to this bandwagon we can agree that it is irrelevant to the case and move on. Bringing it up is mere FUD.


  • #113
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »
    No bother.

    Green Isle dispute is battle in economic war
    Statement by the President of Republican Sinn Féin Des Dalton

    During a visit to the striking Green Isle workers in Naas Co Kildare on February 26 -where he met with the two hunger striking workers Jim Wells and John Guinan (February 26)- the Kildare based President of Republican Sinn Féin Des Dalton pledged the strikers the continued support of Republican Sinn Féin and repeated his call for a boycott of all Green Isle products while the dispute continues.

    “The fact that this strike has lasted so long is an indictment not just of Green Isle but of the so-called labour laws which we are told protect workers. As in this case employers have been given licence to treat workers, as they will let rulings of the Labour Court without any consequences for them. If workers were to take a similar course they would soon find the forces of the state including the courts arrayed against both them and their union.

    “The Green Isle workers need practical support and a boycott of Green Isle products would put immediate pressure on the company.

    “Support for the march in Naas today (February 27) is essential in upping the ante on a company, which has shown only contempt for the rights of their workers. It is time for working people to take to the streets in what is an important battle in an economic war. An injury to one is the concern of all.” Des Dalton said.

    http://www.rsf-kildare.ie/

    That's what you call 'very heavily involved'?


  • #114
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    brianthebard wrote: »
    That's what you call 'very heavily involved'?

    What exactly do you want? Photographic evidence? A recorded interview?:rolleyes:


  • #115
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Mullins07 wrote: »
    I can 100% verify that the hunger striker that is entering the 3rd week tomorrow has not eaten since February 17th. He is beginning to show the effects of it negatively and it is extremely worrying for his family.

    Sounds like you know him personaly, would that be right?

    To be perfectly honest, i don't really see his point, but i genuinely hope it ends well for him and his family. I wouldn't like to see any harm come to him. It's only a job after all, it's not worth damaging yourself for.


  • #116
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »
    What exactly do you want? Photographic evidence? A recorded interview?:rolleyes:

    Some real involvement would be fine. The Union/workers can't stop the RSF from going down to the picket and offering support, then writing about it. But to be considered 'very heavily involved' I'd expect monetary donations, picketing alongside the workers, etc. There's no mention of the RSF or Des Dalton on the TEEU site from what I can see. You're just mudslinging.


  • #117
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Do you even read your own links? The LC link (how the **** can you take information from a website but not have a link to that website btw?)
    The information on the Labour Court's flash site is rendered via the server; its not a statically linked document, hence no link.
    brianthebard wrote: »
    clearly says that the High Court case involved the confidentiality issue of this so-called boardroom file. That is all it was about. If you had read the IT link you'd see this was the case.

    The Labour Court background information clearly ties the dismissals to the high court report:
    Labour Court wrote:
    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.
    brianthebard wrote: »
    Then a month afterwards the company dismissed the workers.
    My reading is that the company obtained a judgement at the High Court and made a desision to dismiss in the light of this judgement.

    I must say, this whole case is light on clear reportage.
    The union ought to seek advise on the legality of the dismissals and take the company to a higher court if necessary.


  • #118
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    dvpower wrote: »
    The information on the Labour Court's flash site is rendered via the server; its not a statically linked document, hence no link.
    Fair enough.

    The Labour Court background information clearly ties the dismissals to the high court report:


    My reading is that the company obtained a judgement at the High Court and made a desision to dismiss in the light of this judgement.

    I must say, this whole case is light on clear reportage.
    The union ought to seek advise on the legality of the dismissals and take the company to a higher court if necessary.

    I agree the reporting is complicated. the piece you quoted does not say who held the investigation that upheld the dismissals. My guess is it was Green Isle, not the High Court which I think is your reading. But at the same time its not clear either way. It should be apparent at this stage however that the High Court case was about the confidentiality issue and not the dismissals or porno.
    I imagine that the TEEU does not want to bring the case to a higher court because (a) Green Isle's parent company has a lot more money than them, and (b) because they consider the Labour Court the place to appeal these issues, and having done so, do not want to play the employer's game.


  • #119
    siochain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭siochain


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Sounds like you know him personaly, would that be right?

    To be perfectly honest, i don't really see his point, but i genuinely hope it ends well for him and his family. I wouldn't like to see any harm come to him. It's only a job after all, it's not worth damaging yourself for.

    its his son,

    no way back now after all this hence the hunger strike. For the sake of your family back it in. The orignal 3 are fired and have moved on some have even got new jobs.


  • #120
    little bee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭little bee


    I'm astounded by some of the misinformation circulating at the start of this thread. I'm glad to see it has become clearer as the conversation has gone on.

    There are a few things that really need to be made clear, and like many others, I'm not particularly keen to take sides, and I'm certainly no fan of Union politics.

    BUT, having said that:

    1. The High Court Case dealt solely with the Boardroom File and that whole debacle. It was nothing to do with the 'porn' issue.
    2. The workers who were sacked for alleged 'misuse of company IT' had NO internet access, only email. Yes, they were sent pictures. MOST of it was NEVER forwarded to anyone else. And it was certainly not 700 pictures. That is what was found in ALL the company computers in the whole building. As I understand it, only 3 or 4 images concern the three individuals for whom the workers are striking. The 700 number is the company spinning it so that you hear it a certain way.
    3. Jim Wyse and John Guinan are NOT any of the three men who were originally fired, and have NEVER been accused of 'misuse of IT'.
    4. Why is no-one mentioning the fact that Green Isle have received €43 million in grants from the IDA? They take money from us, but won't recognise our Unions or the Labour Court.

    And I think it is very upsetting to the Wyse and Guinan families to suggest that the Hunger Strike is not genuine. IT IS. I have passed them by on my way to work. I would be very unhappy with many of the comments here if Jim or John were members of my family.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    little bee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭little bee


    siochain wrote: »
    its his son,

    no way back now after all this hence the hunger strike. For the sake of your family back it in. The orignal 3 are fired and have moved on some have even got new jobs.

    That's totally not true. The original three who were fired have not got new jobs. They are still part of the strike, full-time.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement