Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Independent Workers Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Independent Workers Union. Show all posts
IWU Network Technicians in dispute with the ESB call for a negotiated resolution of the conflict. 

The ESB Branch, Network Technicians

Re- ESB – IWU Official Industrial/Trade Dispute

5/5/2021

ESB, IWU, Strike Committee Press Release

The Independent Workers Union, Network Technicians section is now well into the second day of their two days Official Dispute works stoppage.

The level of turnout and support by over 500 of our members has been fantastic. Pickets were placed and manned in every county in the country.

That any group of workers employed in a semi-state company would have to resort to taking Industrial Action in the year 2021 - on the basis of simply requesting the right to a consultation process on the continued outsourcing of their work - is beyond belief.

The Employee Information and Consultation Act, 2006/08 - the legislation created by the state - enshrines that basic right in law.

The state code of practice on Disputes in an essential service requires both parties to enter the services provided by the WRC Conciliation service in issues of dispute.

The IWU from day one referred this matter to the WRC Conciliation service for mediation purposes. From that moment it unfailingly indicated to the Employer that it was available to discuss the provision of essential emergency cover during the period of the dispute.

This is not a recognition dispute. The Union in a litany of letters to the Employer has always confirmed and acknowledged the Employer’s legal right not to recognise a particular trade union.

But whether the Employer likes it or not, there is a legal obligation on the Employer to establish and provide a proper consultation forum for all employees as is clearly defined within the legislation, the Employee Information and Consultation Act, 2006/08.

The Employer has refused to enter talks or mediation at the WRC Conciliation Service which remains the appropriate forum for such matters.

The Employer appears to believe that it can just ignore its legal obligations for consultation with employees under the legislation, passed by the Government in 2006 and updated in 2008.

It would appear the only reason is that it does not like the colour of our clothes.

By their actions the Employer is actually placing all of the Employment Law legislation and accepted codes of practice of the state in jeopardy.

This is a totally unacceptable and unjustifiable position and cannot be allowed to continue.

The continued support for our action has been overwhelming. From the full turnout of our members, the grateful support shown by our colleagues in the Group of Unions, and indeed most importantly the public at large, the solidarity has been fantastic and has given us great heart. A deep felt thanks is conveyed to all.

We again apologise for any inconvenience caused to the public as a result of this dispute, not of our making.

The Union is currently involved in receiving further advice from our legal appointees in relation to the possible legal enforcement of the covenants enshrined in the legislation.

Our Strike Committee will meet tonight to review and consider all of the related matters to date and give due consideration to the advice received. They will then begin the process of creating an agreed strategy in relation to the implementation of phase two of our official Industrial dispute.

From the outset, the Union has openly expressed to both the Employer and the Media its continued availability and willingness at all times to enter into third party mediation through the good offices of the WRC Conciliation Services to resolve the issues at the heart of this Official dispute. The Employer continues to refuse to enter this appropriate and accepted process.

Our offer remains on the table at all times.

We again would now call on the Employer to abide by accepted and proper procedure and accept this invitation. We would contend that this would be the appropriate response from any reasonable and responsible Employer.

We patiently await that contact or call.

The ESB, IWU, NT Section, Strike Committee.

ESB Industrial Action ➖ IWU Network Technicians Await That Call

IWU Network Technicians in dispute with the ESB call for a negotiated resolution of the conflict. 

The ESB Branch, Network Technicians

Re- ESB – IWU Official Industrial/Trade Dispute

 
Dear All,

On Thursday 28/1/2021 in Dail Question time Mick Barry T.D. asked the following question of Leo Varadkar, Tánaiste: 

Will you call on the ESB to take a step back from the brink, by withdrawing the threat of legal action, and agreeing to talk to the chosen representatives of these workers?

The Tánaiste replied: 

Network Technicians at ESB Networks who are members of the Independent Workers Union, are currently engaged in industrial action and this includes work to rule and work stoppages. Industrial relations within ESB Networks are a matter for the company, and while any industrial action is regrettable the impact of this particular industrial action is expected to be limited. The action is taken by Network Technicians at the ESB who are members of the Independent Workers’ Union. this Union is not affiliated to either the ESB Group of unions or the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and workers who are members of these unions are not involved in any industrial action.

At this particular juncture in the ongoing dispute we, on behalf of the IWU-NT membership, would like to put forward a genuine account of the actual situation.

After an internal consultation process, the Independent Workers’ Union was mandated by over 500 of its NT members to pursue a claim for consultation rights on the continued outsourcing of their work to external third parties. A process – known as the Local Implementation Groups (LIGs) - already existed within the ESB whereby this consultation facility was afforded to other employees and members of other trade unions. For a period of almost two years, the employees and their Trade Union properly utilised every available internal grievance avenue to reach an accommodation with the Employer on the matter. At every turn, the Employer thwarted any forward movement and resolutely refused to accommodate all forms of dialogue. The blanket response was that the Employer did not recognise the Trade Union and would not engage.

It is very important to point out that at no time did the Union ever request recognition status on this issue. In a litany of correspondence to the Employer it acknowledged the Employer’s legal right not to recognise a Trade Union, should it choose not to do so. This is an irrefutable fact. It was never about recognition of unions but recognition of rights. What was pointed out to the Employer in numerous letters was that the employees concerned were legally entitled to consultation and information rights on the outsourcing of their work as outlined in the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006 and the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Information and Consultation) (Declaration) Order 2008.

It is also crucial to assert that this particular piece of legislation was introduced to actually ensure that employees who were not members of a recognised trade union, not members of any trade union or were members of a trade union not recognised by an Employer, had a legal entitlement to an information, consultation process and procedure to be enacted within their place of employment.

The criteria for asserting such a right under the legislation is that in a situation where within a particular grade, over ten per cent of the employees wish to make an application for consultation they can use the clearly defined format whereby fifteen or more employees nominate an excepted body (Trade Union or Association or Representative) to make the application on their behalf. The claim can be made either to the Employer directly or to the Labour Court.

The Union, as duly appointed representatives, appropriately made the claim on behalf of their affected members to the Employer. It clearly stipulated at the time, that it was acting as the appointed representative of over one third of the NT section’s 400 plus members. This stipulation was expressed to the Employer and further in a submission form to the WRC Conciliation Service which is the appropriate first referral point identified within the legislation. The submission to the WRC was also copied to the Employer.

The Employer chose to totally ignore the validity of the claim and rejected all available avenues for dispute resolution which are:

  • The Code of Practice for Employers within the provision of an Essential Service
  • The Code of Practice on Information and Consultation (Declaration) Order 2008.

The Employer has decided not to engage in the legislatively defined covenant for dispute resolution outlined below.

16.2 However, parties may not be able to reach agreement at local level. In these situations, the Act makes extensive provision for third party dispute resolution in relation to different types of dispute arising from the various provisions of the Act. Specifically, these relate to interpretation or operation of agreements or systems of direct involvement. It is important to note the first point of referral in this regard is the Conciliation Services of the Labour Relations Commission, which gives parties an opportunity to reach agreement on the matter in contention in an informal process under the chairmanship of an independent third party. If the dispute is not resolved, it is referred to the Labour Court for recommendation or determination. Ultimately a Labour Court determination can be enforced by the Circuit Court.

Instead, the Employer has chosen not to acknledge that an official dispute is taking place. This is in spite of an acknowledgement of same in its own letters to both the Trade Union and the WRC. It raised a technical argument in relation to the wording of section 7, in respect of the criteria of the raised grievance and dispute. It refused point blank to enter the well-established mechanisms for Industrial Dispute resolution readily available to all parties via the Proper forum for such dispute resolution.

This was in contravention of their obligations and responsibilities as an Essential Service Provider.

Unfortunately, the Employer has moved to issue legal proceedings in the High Court under the Defamation Act, 2009 (a civil action) against the Union and its official. This is an action not lodged under any Employment Law legislation as one would expect, but through what the union contends is a wholly unsuitable forum.

By its actions, the Employer is actually making a mockery of the state created machinery for the resolution, mediation, facilitation, adjudication, and determination of industrial relation matters - the Workplace Relation Commission and the Labour Court.

To be precise, the Employer has chosen to ignore the clearly defined procedures set out in the Statutory Instrument: the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006 and the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Information and Consultation) (Declaration) Order 2008.

This is coming from a semi-state employer that, one would imagine, is obliged to comply with state legislation, Statutory Instruments, and state codes of practice. If the Employer’s action were deemed to be acceptable, leading to every employer taking an intransigent approach to a declared industrial dispute, the entire edifice of Employment Legislation risks crumbling, the corollary of which would be every protection enjoyed by all employees of the nation being placed in jeopardy.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the employees involved are also shareholders in the company. By their continued exclusion, serious questions arise under the Companies Act in relation to the exclusion of shareholders (Minority freeze out) regarding the continued outsourcing of the shareholders’ work without consultation. This fact was registered and brought to the attention of both the Employer and the ESOP by the Trade Union as far back as December 2019. Yet again the Employer chose to ignore the raised concern.

Other constitutional concerns have now come to light pertaining to the Employers’ insistence on a closed shop arrangement with the Group of Unions being adhered to by all employee/shareholders. This must impact or breach the Freedom of Association and Freedom of Disassociation clauses within the related articles of the Irish Constitution. It invites consideration of the possibility of such an arrangement being actually repugnant to the Constitution.

Another concern is that within the internal individual employer grievance and disciplinary procedures, there is a restriction in place which aims to prevent the grievance being referred to an independent third party, like the WRC for final adjudication or determination. This flies in the face of the principles of fair procedure and natural justice.

There are 500 plus employees in the NT section. This constitutes almost fifty per cent within the grade and is growing daily. Their industrial action has the mandate and justification under the legislation which insists on the approval by secret ballot – in this case an overwhelming majority backed Industrial action. The massive turnout by the members nationally on both stoppage days, proves beyond any shadow of doubt the validity of both the claim and the actions initiated by the Trade Union on their behalf.

Our members also acknowledge with sincere thanks and great appreciation the support given to them by those Group of Unions members who supported our official actions on both days.

As always from day one, this Union remains available at any minute of the day to enter dialogue and mediation on all related matters of dispute through the good offices of the WRC Conciliation Service, the appropriate and proper forum for the resolution of such disputes.

As the dispute is rooted in the provision of an essential service, and the Union is deeply sensitive to the needs of the public depending on the service provided, it respectfully calls on all elected representative to use their good office to insist that the Employer behaves responsibly and acts within the established resolution machinery of the state; that it adheres to the available mechanisms of the Industrial dispute resolution services of the Workplace Relations Commission Conciliation Service, and desists from the ill-conceived resort to High Court service orders, a totally inappropriate forum for such a dispute. Politicians should work to ensure that the Employer enters a meaningful process for the satisfactory resolution of this matter.

To every recipient of this letter, we would like to thank you for taking the time to read our frank account of the current predicament. It is our sincere hope that you can support our call for negotiations between the Employer and the employees and that you will raise the matter at the appropriate levels.

Yours Sincerely,

Brian Baitson, Alan Thompson, Gerard Tuohy, Gerard Hoey, Michael Dolan, P.J.Tierney, Shane Duggan, Alan Matthews, Brendan O Donnell, Brian Naughton, Ciaran Kinsella, David Corbett, Declan Doherty, Frank Martyn, Jack Toland, Jonathon Magnier, Larry Mc Donald, Liam Coakley, Michael Buckley, Norman Valentine, Ritchie Vaughan, Shane Johnston, Stephen Darling, Gerry Mc Carthy, Shay Duggan - Strike Committee, ESB, IWU, Network Technicians.

Gerry Corbett, Union Official. IWU, ESB.

IWU Network Technicians ➖ Open Letter To All Elected Representatives/Media

The ESB-IWU Strike Committee with a press release on the ongoing industrial action against the ESB

The ESB Branch, Network Technicians

This morning at 8am, over 500 plus members of the Independent Workers Union placed Official Strike Pickets on the premises of their Employer, ESB Networks throughout the country.

All four corners of the country were covered: Donegal, Letterkenny, all Dublin Stations, Swords, Inchicore, South Lotts, Finglas, Leopardstown, Belgard, Waterford, Sligo, Ikerrin, Galway City, Loughrea, Tuam, Clifden, Ballinasloe, Athenry, Athlone, Ennis, Tipperary, Nenagh, Roscommon, Longford, Limerick, Rosbrien, Corbally, Carrick on Shannon, Ballycoolin, Kilkenny, Carlow, Portlaoise, Enniscorthy, Dumanaway, Clashavon, Cork, Middleton, Wiltown, Ballycooin, Mullingar, Kerry, Tralee, Castlebagot, Caherciveen, Sligo, Meath, Navan, Mountgorry, Kilcoole, Wiklow, Arklow to name but a few.

This is the Union's second day of a full work stoppage in their valid legal claim for proper consultation rights under the Information and Consultation Act 2006/08, in relation to the continued outsourcing of their work by the Employer. 

Our members have been almost two years attempting to utilise all the available internal grievance procedures of the Employer to resolve this issue, In that time they have come against nothing more than a brick wall approach from the Employer. Eventually due to the intransigent position being adopted our members were left with no option but to ballot for Industrial Action up to and Including Strike Action.  Proper procedure under the legislation was enacted and the Employer was correctly informed. As set out in the legislation and indeed the code of practice for disputes in an essential service, the Union referred the matter to the WRC Conciliation service for dispute resolution. The company point blank refused to enter this process. We would contend ignoring their duties and responsibilities as an essential service provider Employer.

The Union on numerous occasions has offered the Employer the facility of offering an emergency essential service cover during the dispute if required. To date the Employer has failed to take up this offer with any meaningful contact.

From day one the Union has openly expressed to both the Employer and the Media its continued availability and willingness at all times to enter third party mediation through the good offices of the WRC conciliation services to resolve the issues at the heart of this Official dispute. The Employer continues to refuse to enter this appropriate and accepted process.

Our offer remains on the table at all times.

Rather they have chosen to Issue High Court civil proceedings against the Union and its officials under the Defamation Act 2009 and circulate them widely within the staff arena on the night before the second stoppage. This challenge will be met head on by the Union's legal team. What that has to do to assist in the resolution of an Industrial Dispute is beyond the realms of logic in any forum. Very unsavoury and unhelpful behaviour at a time of increased tensions is certainly not the best approach in overcoming any present difficulties.

It begs the question if the Employer is really concerned about their customers you would imagine they should sit down with their workers' chosen representatives like any reasonable Employer would do.

Today’s support for our action has been overwhelming, from the full turnout of our members. The grateful support shown by our colleagues in the Group of Unions, and indeed most importantly the public at large's support has been fantastic and given us great heart. A deep felt thanks is conveyed to all.

We again apologise for any inconvenience caused to the public as a result of this dispute, not of our making.

Eventually, we would hope some semblance of common sense will be shown by the Employer in moving from their present intransigent position to one of dialogue and discussion to bring this dispute to a satisfactory conclusion in the best interests of all concerned parties.

We patiently await that contact or call. 

The ESB, IWU, NT Section, Strike Committee.

ESB-IWU Strike Committee Press Release

Independent Workers Union urges that ✒ We must Stop the privation of the ESB.


ESB Industrial Dispute Details

Network Technicians employed by Ireland’s most successful company, the ESB, are going on strike tomorrow in order to save the company from privatisation.

Government and management are afraid of a public backlash if they openly declare their desire to privatise one of Ireland's greatest success stories and have therefore decided to embark on a backdoor method of privatisation.

The work of Network Technicians is being handed out to private contractors. The technicians have not been consulted (as is required by the Consultation and Information Act 2006) as to what areas of their work are to be contracted out and so they have refused to cooperate with the process since last Monday.

From Friday next they will organise a series of work stoppages, in order to prevent the elimination of their jobs, the abandonment of apprenticeship training and the eventual privatisation of the company in order to make profits for vulture funds and greedy corporate entities.

The people of Ireland do not need another Telecom Eireann like disaster.

There are approximately 1250 Network Technicians employed by the ESB, whose job it is to ensure that power supplies get from generation plants to all homes and businesses throughout the state.

Over 500 of these technicians are members of the Independent Workers Union, who are leading the strike in the fight against privatisation.

Support the strikers – keep the ESB in public ownership.

Stop The Privatisation Of The ESB

Gerry Corbett in the run up to Easter took time out to reflect on James Connolly.
As we enter Easter I always give a thought to the man who 105 years ago led the Citizen’s Army into The Rising in Dublin, James Connolly. A man who gave his life working to improve workers' rights and seeking a fairer, equal and more just Ireland.

Here this coming week, a century later we find our membership voting to take industrial action for the most simple of basic of workers’ rights, the right to be consulted on their very work being handed out to others. And the right to protect that work and the terms and conditions achieved by our forefathers many years ago. 

Let’s reflect on how this dilemma has come about

Internal closed shop agreements and social partnership are anti-democratic, because a small group of insiders make the deal. This is then packaged and sold to workers as the best deal possible at this time, given the present circumstances.

Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership comes onto the horizon as a result of political, employment and economic crisis, in order to reduce workers’ expectations, demands and aspirations and to lay the ground for the introduction of reduced terms, yellow pack new entrants and austerity.

The trade union movement must reject this strategy.

To be clear, I am not condemning the entire trade union movement. There are many within the movement fighting against this strategy. Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership agreements are not binding on the government: it is free to treat them as advisory, while unions depend on the state to introduce legislation in the spirit of the agreement, which rarely happens.

The ultimate goal of internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership is the demobilisation of union resistance in employers’ interests. Unions exchange wage moderation and industrial peace for an expectation of policy and institutional influence. The amount of influence is debatable. Some legislative regulations protecting workers were negotiated under social partnership but ultimately had to be passed by the government. Not all were: for example, we still await legislation on union recognition amongst many other issues.

Trade unions always feared legislation on employment, but social partnership actually accelerated it. Of course the crowning glory of social partnership was the Industrial Relations Act (1990), which in effect stripped all power from unions and workers, transferring it to employers and the judiciary. The trade union movement was hoodwinked by Bertie Ahern, then minister for labour, who was seen as the workers’ friend, with guarantees, promises and assurances that it was in workers’ best interest to get this legislation through, as it would inevitably lead to better pay and conditions, when employment relations would improve immensely as a result of it. Yes, employment relations improved immensely—but for employers, not workers—as a result of the 1990 Act.

The trade union movement had been softened up and became far too cozy around Government Buildings, and High level local management believing their own bluster that they had influence on social and company policy. During this period the working class suffered devastating cuts to the social wage; the building of public housing was abandoned to the private sector; charges were introduced for the dysfunctional health service, on its knees as a result of continuous cuts. At the same time tax breaks were given to employers, speculators and investors as workers were robbed to pay Peter, Paul and every gombeen businessperson in the largest transfer of wealth to the ruling elite since the foundation of the state.

As a result of internal closed shop agreements and social partnership, union density collapsed. Strikes became a thing of the past, leading to a generation of union reps without any experience of collective bargaining or collective action.

As time went on, Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership became more and more bureaucratic, with working groups, task forces, reviews, and committees, leading to avoidance, postponement, and lack of decision-making on contentious issues. Employers did not have to implement regulations, and many did not.

The private sector has almost complete autonomy to pursue corporate strategies, while employers are free to determine the form, structure and organisation of any internal collective bargaining unit.

The main achievement of internal closed shop agreements and social partnership was a victory for the employers in gaining pay restraint and industrial peace. The cherry on the pie was a plethora of anti-union legislation, not least the Industrial Relations Act. The government succeeded in lowering workers’ expectations, enabling them to impose austerity policies at will. In the public sector, “workplace partnership” has been used in a managerial manner to drive through a predetermined reform agenda.

The reliance of the trade union movement, particularly the larger unions, on internal closed shop agreements and social partnership as a strategy has over time engendered a reluctance to embrace - and in some cases a fear of - alternative strategies.

Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership created an unnatural division between the public and private sectors, and this was encouraged by the government, employers, and media. The Croke Park / Landsdowne Agreements then divided the public sector unions. Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership has left the trade union movement a pale shadow of its former self: broken, demoralised, with falling union density and a serious lack of experience in collective action, leading to a fundamental lack of confidence.

The employers’ side, on the other hand, has grown in confidence as increasingly, and successfully, they turn to the courts to stop workers from striking. The anti-union legislation has led to many victories over unions, giving employers the confidence to now engage in aggressive union-busting tactics.

The legal environment is extraordinarily hostile to workers and to unions. Workplace partnership is non-existent, as the balance of power has shifted from workers to employers.

Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership has devastated the trade union movement; but still many within it are wedded to this paradigm. There has been a class war on workers’ rights for thirty years, and workers are losing hands down.

Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership is class betrayal. Unions must become radical or they will become redundant and ultimately defeated.

This week our members make a choice and the choice is fully theirs: do we stand together to put a hold on the onslaught of attacks on our very futures, or accept the continued rollover ethic being accepted by the softened up group union thinking?

I know where Connolly would have stood.


Gerry Corbett is Independent Workers'
Union, ESB, National Secretary

An Easter Reflection

Irish Times ➤ Problems aggravated by ‘unscrupulous practices’ of some agencies, Covid-19 committee told. 

By Martin Wall

A great number of Romanian workers for years were cheated out of their social security rights in Ireland by the employment agency who was hiring them to work in several meat plants in Munster, a union representative has told the Oireachtas committee on Covid-19.

Nora Labo of the Cork Operative Butchers’ Society - a branch of the Independent Workers’ Union - said the Romanian nationals were employed as self-employed contractors declared in Poland.

She said:

all their contributions were sent to Polish, not Irish revenue, even though all these people were working full time in Ireland for years and had no ties to Poland.

She said at a hearing of the committee on Thursday that:

for many years, all these workers had no annual leave, no right to illness benefit, child allowance etc, had no PPS numbers, and were de facto invisible in Ireland.

Continue reading @ Irish Times.

Overseas Meat Plant Workers ‘Cheated Out Of Social Security Rights’

Gerry Corbett, a frontline trade union official, offers his opinion on the current challenges faced by the trade union movement.

The Impact of Social Partnership and the Industrial Relations Act on Irish Workers Rights 2020, and the need for the leadership of the Trade Union movement to immediately accept and address the failings of past decisions - radically reform and reconstruct its thinking and approach, ratify and endorse new organised steps and measures to realign workers throughout the country and begin a process of restoring the years of lost ground pertaining to workers rights, in both a strong presence on the ground and the achievement of proper legislation to protect the very future of the movement - has now become an integral and essential necessity.

The alternative is to continue with and be part of a failed process, whereby Congress and the trade union leadership in the eyes of the majority of the rank and file, and indeed the greater public have become nothing more than another arm of the state, all too willing to endorse and support what has now become an endless reduction in prior achieved and hard fought rights.

Furthermore, in their actions they have fully bought into and promoted a system that actually weakened the resolve of the membership on core issues. And using the principals of facilitation and mediation at every turn actually defeated the original stand made on any issue. In return at almost every test, what was believed and packaged to be a great success has been struck down on numerous occasions as repugnant to the constitution, and has actually proved worthless.

It is important to remember that trade unions are presently obliged to operate within a restrictive legal and constitutional framework partly of their own making, The buy-in at Bertie's behest by the then and subsequent trade union leadership into the social partnership model brought about what can only be the described as a slow growing cancer to the movement: three decades of centralised wage agreements that effectively removed the power of the worker from the shop floor to the ivory towers of the so called people who knew best. Industrial peace was promoted and the unions became the free HR department of the employer. Low tax policies and small pay awards became the norm and were packaged and sold to the members as the wise leaders' answer to all.

With the low taxes came the underfunding and privatisation of our essential services like health, transport, education, water and of course, housing. The Unions after buying into and recommending the process found themselves defending and actually guarding the partnership on behalf of the other so called partners. They now found themselves telling members want they could not do on a daily basis. The rot had set in. But rather than pulling the plug, the leadership had become too friendly with their new found friends, too comfortable sitting in the soft chairs in the big plush offices. They had long forgotten the long, nasty, hard fought battles it took for them and their like to get to even be sitting at that table.

Add to this lovely mix, that after all those years of so called partnership the trade union movement have still to this day not achieved proper legislation on mandatory collective bargaining rights. Some partnership?

The industrial Relations Act and all of its amendments has consistently being sold as another prize for the benefit of workers,. Yet when it has been tested within the judicial arena if has failed at all the important hurdles - REOs were deemed to be unconstitutional, Registered Employment Agreements’, ‘Joint Labour Committees’ and ‘Sectoral Employment Orders’. all have been found to be unconstitutional.

The constant tinkering at the Act in its present format is nothing more than a window dressing exercise for a failed entity, Furthermore, to take it a step further, any collective agreement in any employment naturally falls under the same remit. The freedom of contract and freedom of association as defined, and now consistently upheld in the Supreme Court and the High Court, clearly leaves the option open for employees who are non-union - or other, and who were never part of a process of discussion and agreement, and never balloted on acceptance - to freely challenge any enforcement of such a collective agreement within their contract of employment and terms and conditions as being unconstitutional. It is worth noting to date no collective agreement has been challenged to the High Court, mainly because the in-house agreements generally ensured improved terms and conditions. However in recent years it has become too often that the terms of new collective agreements actually reduced the terms and conditions. Not too long I think before we see a High Court challenge from a grouping of disgruntled employees.

Why you might ask does the trade union movement find itself in such a quagmire? Quite simply that in spite of this great partnership, and great friendship between the government, the employers and Congress - and indeed the leadership of all the big unions - over decades now and with all the might and strength of our great membership and leadership, we have failed to have mandatory collective bargaining legislation drawn up, and passed in Dail Eireann.

Our present whole labour legal legislation is based on a voluntary buy-in. And in all those decades the might of the trade union movement on this island has not yet managed to influence any government to have a mandatory collective bargaining trade union act, created in legislation, placed before, voted on, and passed in Dail Eireann.

Rather the present wisdom coming from the marble halls of Congress and indeed the major union block to the most recent High Court finding went as follows: the government must appeal this decision to the Supreme Court and put a stay on the High Court decision; we must now ballot all of our members for impending industrial action, was the war cry from some of our leading lights.
Let us just for one minute examine this light bulb response from our highly paid leaders, none of which will be actually impacted by the High Court decision in their take home pay.

The High Court decision ruled out the Sectoral Order because it was repugnant to the Constitution, in that decisions by a minister or the Labour Court could not interfere with the protections of freedom of association and freedom of contract as protected and guaranteed under article (Article 15.2.1).

Now a quick chat with any young barrister who has just left the Kings Inn on his way to carve out a well heeled life on other people’s problems, you can be told a couple of things very smartly:  any appeal of a High Court decision on a decision of repugnancy of the Constitution will have very little hope of success. Furthermore, it will probably take two years to hear. And, more importantly, no stay can be put on a High Court decision because of the finding of an infringement of constitutional rights.

The actual only way to overcome the ruling is by way of referendum. Some chance of that happening.

So the question must be asked - just what games are the brains of the trade union movement playing with the membership? Then we have the ballot the members for industrial action war cry, just for what? To march the troops up to the top of the hill, then be referred to the WRC to mediate and facilitate for what? And on what? And achieve actually what? Because the minister, the Labour Court and the WRC still will be without the authority to enforce anything that infringes on the protected rights of the Constitution. Some plan all right.

England has the Employment Relations Act 1999, introduced by a Tony Blair-led government which introduced Trade Union recognition legislation for firms with more than 20 employees where a simple majority of the relevant workforce wanted it. France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy. Portugal, Sweden, Luxembourg, Germany and Austria all provide for collective bargaining machinery as nations at all levels. Serious questions must be asked of our leadership when we find ourselves in this present position.

It is often said Unions are only as good and as strong as the members; fair comment would be the national membership have become too complacent and accepted a lackluster ageing leadership who have become far too comfortable in their plush surroundings. The restrictive democratic process of the trade union model indeed has also certainly played a major part in what the movement has become. Also any discerning voice, even when it made sense, was quickly silenced and shunned in a totally negative fashion.

This cannot be allowed to continue, A complete root and branch overhaul of the movement in its entirety is now required. The membership must stand up and be counted and demand this takes place in an open and transparent way, and quickly if the movement is to survive.

The elephant in the room has to be tackled. Draft legislation has to be prepared, The Trade Union Act, 2020, enshrining the trade union right to access and representation of choice, and ensuring the legitimacy of collective agreements is not open to endless challenge. If a referendum is required to support this act, so be it. At least then when we march the troops to the top of the hill, we have a plan. Furthermore, a plan we will not mediate backwards on. Whatever action is required it must take place to achieve the goal.

Governments and Employers were never the workers friend. It was naïve to ever think otherwise. It is time we returned to the founding principles of Connolly and Larkin. Their aims and wishes are still unfinished business. Let us together as a movement again make them proud.

Gerry Corbett is the national secretary of the
Independent Workers' Union ESB Technicians.

A Reflection Of The Present Crisis Pertaining To Workers Rights In Ireland

Dublin Branch Independent Workers' Union have issued a statement regarding a High Court judgement this week in favour of profiteers and against working people.

Earlier this week the High Court struck out a law providing for certain minimum pay and entitlements for electricians.

The National Electrical Contractors of Ireland (NECI), claimed that a Sectoral Employment Order issued last year by the government, and which offered certain protections to electricians, was a breach of their constitutional right to shaft their employees every which way. It was a statement that resonated with the worst instincts of Thatcherism.

The High Court sided with the bosses, in a judgement that has left employees cruelly exposed to the vagaries of the economy and the greed of employers.

The judgement of the court will not apply only to our electrician colleagues. Its effects will be felt right across the mechanical engineering and construction industry.

Already the trade union Connect is to ballot 20, 000 of its members. Its General Secretary has warned employers of “war” in the event of workers’ terms and conditions being adversely affected.

The Dublin branch of the Independent Workers’ Union offers solidarity to all workers facing a pay meltdown as a result of the High Court’s reactionary judgement.

Tomorrow, Saturday @ 1100, there will be a public protest by workers from across the construction industry. The venue is the Convention Centre in Dublin. The IWU will be in attendance and calls on others to exercise their constitutional right to democratically register their dissent from measures designed to enable exploitative employees and disadvantage employees.

Anyone turning out tomorrow is advised to take all measures to ensure Covid-19 is not spread. All public health measures should be observed including social distancing.

High Court Backs Higher Profit And Lower Wages


The Dublin branch of the Independent Workers Union has been inundated with requests for information about the expulsion from the union of its own postal driver members and the possibility of the union being absorbed into an ICTU affiliate in a complete inversion of the principles on which the IWU was formed. The following exchange between a member of the Dublin branch and one of the affected postal drivers teases out the issues and addresses what is at stake. As much of what follows is a critique of the National Executive Council of the IWU, a full right of reply is open to any member of the NEC or the body itself, if they feel anything in the exchange constitutes a misrepresentation of their position or is factually incorrect.


Anthony McIntyre of the Dublin Branch in Conversation with Derek Keenan of the Dublin Postal Drivers.

Betrayal is never easy to handle and there is no right way to accept it. ― Christine Feehan.


AM: Expelled from a supposedly independent union and left without union cover, you have effectively been deunionised by a union that ostensibly seeks to build up union membership. I suppose the most frequently asked question is one of how it all started. There is a sense of disbelief out there that the IWU would go down this route – almost like the Catholic Church abolishing Holy Communion or sainthood, even embracing Protestantism. You are a bunch of workers who believed what the Independent Workers Union said on the tin – that it was independent from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Now to your consternation, you find yourself expelled from the IWU at the behest of a congress union bureaucrat. As a member of the Dublin branch, I know that it is appalled at the turn of events within the IWU. It finds it preposterous that the NEC of a union set up to protect workers from the harmful effects of the Congress Cartel, could actually throw its own members under the bus to facilitate people affiliated to Congress. As the NEC is telling us less, it falls on you to tell us more.

DK: It is exactly as you have said. We were drawn to the IWU on the basis that they stood outside Congress and in opposition to partnership and crucially supported the rights of workers to join a union of their choice. Well, at least that’s what it said on the tin.

AM: As I see it the Dublin Postal Driver members were guilty of nothing, were not found guilty of anything, and had their membership terminated through the mechanism of collective penalisation, defined as “a penalty imposed on every member of a group without regard to his or her involvement in the group's actions and conduct.” This without a hearing or right to any appeal other than the hollow offer of next year’s AGM, by which time the union will most likely have been scuttled: not even as much as a Stalinist show trial. A total denial of natural justice and due process. I know you have expressed a reluctance to wash dirty linen in public, but the public will be forced to sleep in that dirty linen if the pretence of it being cleaned in private is not exposed as a farce. Surely it is a matter of public interest when the only independent trade union licence for general workers in the country risks being sold off in a flagrant breach of what the union was set up for in the first place? Brendan Ogle, who pressed to have you put out of the IWU actually slagged you about the licence going up in smoke when you met with him. This has to be something that must be placed in the public domain despite your reticence about dirty linen. As a member of the NUJ for two decades, I pay no heed to any argument for imposing secrecy on these things. The business of the public should be done in public.

DK: Well to be fair to the NEC they did allow me to address them at the meeting where they ultimately decided to shaft us, which was very good of them. I never held out much hope that I could change their minds on it, but I wanted to make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to screw us over. The core arguments I made for keeping us as members were framed precisely around the founding principles of the Union, but it didn’t matter: those principles obviously no longer matter to the majority of the NEC; they no longer believe in the merits of an independent trade union and are willing to cosy up with a Congress affiliate and eventually surrender the negotiating licence. Absolutely, this is a matter of public interest and should be a cause for alarm for those interested in maintaining the existence of a radical trade union of the left with a negotiating licence.

AM: I certainly reject in its entirety the concept that unions affiliated to the Congress Cartel should be allowed the latitude for conscription to their own unions, afforded by the NEC’s expulsion of the postal drivers. Workers should be free to join unions of their choice, not forced into them. We inhabit a union environment, not a gulag. A union might decline to accept workers as members but when it does accept them, it is obligated to respect their rights to due process. Unions cannot set the bar for termination of membership lower than employers set it for dismissal. It is an abomination for the NEC to hand its members over to the other side on foot of a threat that there will be no further talks if the demand is not met.

DK: Correct, the principles of natural justice certainly didn’t apply here. Committed workers and trade unionists have been treated like pawns. We were accepted into membership of this union by the same NEC who subsequently shafted us at the behest of a Congress affiliate.

AM: Whatever the NEC has become independent of it is demonstrably not the Congress Cartel. The semantic efforts to claim the postal workers were not expelled but had their membership rescinded is nothing more than an exercise in pissing down the membership’s back and claiming it is raining. Straight out of Animal Farm is it not?

DK: Yeah that was something that really pissed our members off, the double speak and bullshit semantics you would expect from a Fianna Fail bagman now coming from the uppermost echelons of our union. Every dirty trick that’s been pulled to deny our members, ordinary workers, their rights, moves this whole sorry saga beyond the realms of satire. It’s an incredibly disgusting betrayal of our members and of the entire Union membership, whom I don’t think are aware of or would support what has happened.

AM: I would hope not. It would be turkeys voting for Christmas. It is absurd that Brendan Ogle who is not a member of the IWU - and who should have no input whatsoever to the internal affairs of the IWU - is so pivotal to your expulsion. His nauseating snobbery was evident in his pejorative characterisation of ESB workers as spoilt – a large body of their people too are our members. I don’t know the guy but a frequent criticism is that here we have a fat cat Congress bureaucrat on a much higher salary than the workers he held in contempt, and he ultimately has them expelled from a union he did not belong to in order to facilitate a union grab project. He was allowed an input at a stage-managed AGM, while fellow union members were not - on the convenient grounds of their not being in-benefit. What in-benefit criteria did Ogle satisfy that you did not?

DK: Firstly, let me just say that our foremost grievance is with the leadership of the IWU and not Brendan Ogle but I cannot ignore the central role he played in our expulsion from the IWU, albeit a role he was given by our General Secretary.

AM: While you seek to keep the focus on what the NEC has done you are at the same time aware of just how livid the Dublin branch is at the role of Brendan Ogle. It is spitting nails, and some believe the Unite offices should be picketed. You could not have been happy with the way the AGM was handled. The Dublin branch thought it was a rigged affair, designed to pave the way for the expulsion of the postal drivers.

DK: Yeah, the Conference was a shocking piece of choreography designed to make our members feel decidedly unwelcome. Around a dozen or so of our lads attended, probably the largest bloc within the room. We were denied voting rights because we had not been members for three months. I’m reliably informed that this had never been enforced before.

AM: That is my understanding also. I have spoken with people who have attended these things for a decade or more and they say this is the first time ever and view it as an attempt to disenfranchise the postal drivers. Even the very act of holding the AGM in the Unite building, despite the opposition of the Dublin branch, was a declaration of the NEC intent to roll over and comply with the outrageous request to shaft IWU members.

DK: Incredibly the first business of conference was a letter from Mr Ogle outlining his assessment of the progress of the merger talks. His view was that the talks had been derailed. Why? Because the IWU had accepted our group as members. We were the problem that needed solving or more specifically removing.

AM: Basically, there was an ultimatum from Brendan Ogle: hand over your members to the Congress Cartel or there will be no further talks. Yet we had been assured at the NEC meeting where your membership of the IWU had been approved, that this would never be allowed to happen. When a concern was raised the response was that it was “Ogle’s problem, not ours.”

DK: It is customary at an Annual Conference for new groups of members to be specifically welcomed and extended the collective solidarity of the Union but this is what our members had to endure, and that wasn’t the end of the collective slap in the face as the General Secretary’s report again pointed at our membership as being an issue, shocking stuff.

AM: I find laughable the NEC pretence that the report conducted by Ogle was independent. A report from a man who had a vested interest in shaping the outcome in his own favour and away from those workers his report was directed at should never have been allowed to darken the door of the IWU. This Animal Farm chicanery from the NEC is reprehensible. Can you elaborate on that report?

DK: Absolutely, the General Secretary without any consultation with me as the representative of the Postal Drivers made a unilateral decision to engage with the General Secretary of our previous Union, the CWU, with a view to opening up some form of dialogue to resolve the problem, the problem being us of course. It was agreed between both sides to commission a report into the circumstances in which we left the CWU and joined the IWU. The report was to be authored by John Douglas and Brendan Ogle.

I have an enormous amount of respect for John Douglas and could only characterise his involvement as being for the right reasons, with no agenda other than to act as an honest broker. But there is no way the same could be said of Brendan Ogle. He clearly had skin in the game and a vested interest in recommending our return to the CWU which the report ultimately concluded. But again, my issue is with our general secretary.

AM: A term you have previously used is forced repatriation – a useful way to describe it.

DK: Forced back to a bad place we had departed from and broken all ties with. Yes.

AM: Sounds like an arranged marriage where your wishes or consent are not considered relevant. I will be proposing to the Dublin branch that it write to the leadership of Unite in London, protesting the involvement of Brendan Ogle in your expulsion from the union.

DK: Again he will just argue that he was invited into this process by the IWU General Secretary and any grievances we have should be taken up internally, and notwithstanding the obvious stitch-up, you can’t really argue with that. It’s our General Secretary whom we blame for all of this, he nominated Mr Ogle in the full knowledge of their mutual interests, he screwed us along with the majority of the NEC even in the knowledge that our members had unanimously rejected the report in its entirety. We spoke but they ignored us. So much for the primacy of workers’ own decision making.

AM: And he is your General Secretary because despite the best efforts of the NEC to expel you all, the courts have slapped an injunction on it. That is a most welcome move. But it seems terrible that working people have to resort to the courts to prevent their union shafting them. I am in the Labour Court and WRC pretty regularly, so availing of the legislation is considered a legitimate course of action within the union. Only this time, it is the NEC rather than Ibec against which the fight for workers’ rights is being waged.

DK: It’s unfortunate that we had to seek such injunctive relief but we will do whatever it takes to vindicate our position and ultimately safeguard the Union into the future.

AM: Although you refer specifically to the general secretary, you have not made this about personalities. Your emphasis has always been on the strategic and an outcome that has the optimum benefit for the postal drivers, the union and the future of a trade unionism that is not co-opted.

DK: Of course. I would expect it to be the same for you and the Dublin branch.

AM: Very much. There is no one on the NEC I do not like on a personal basis or would fall out with over this. We have always been in the trenches at some point. But this transcends the personal.

DK: It is not personal or about personalities.

AM: You believe there is a Communist Party of Ireland hand at play here. Why is that? I know you don’t share my serious misgivings about communist parties the world over. I am probably more cynical about them than Orwell. But why do you think it might be up to its old tricks in this situation?

DK: Firstly, I’m not at all sectarian and I have no issue at all with any party of the left and recognise that within their ranks are good decent activists seeking radical progressive change. Nor am I saying it is up to any tricks. But fundamentally the Communist Party sees the IWU as a dangerous project which undermines workers’ collective strength by further fragmenting the trade union movement. Paradoxically, our General Secretary is a party member and I’m not sure how many more of the NEC are but I certainly would suggest that the more influential members are at least closely aligned.

AM: So Napoleon is not out to gut Snowball?

DK: It is not about Stalinists and Trots, even if you use terms like Stalinist. It is about trade union independence and the right of workers to join a union of their choice. It should not be dressed up as anything else.

AM: Although you are not arguing against their choice to belong to the CP or any party of their choice? All the NEC members, agree with their position or not, have a track record which you graciously acknowledge, of robustly defending the rights of workers

DK: Absolutely, there is no doubt that among the NEC members are good committed activists with strong track records of representing workers and trying to forge a different path away from the disastrous partnership era, but they are wrong here and deep down I think they know it.

AM: Your take is considerably more nuanced than my own. The Communist Party, to whatever extent it is involved, can find its own level, even if in my unforgiving view it will stand on its hind legs to do so. The Dublin branch, for its part, is determined that the union will keep its four feet firmly on the ground with the members. That said, is there not a case for forming a Left bloc within Congress? Some people think that Unite, Mandate and the Communications Workers Union have done a lot of sterling work.

DK: Absolutely. These unions have done good work and that’s to be welcomed. There is always a case for building a left bloc within whatever given framework, be it political, societal or institutional, but that should never be done at the expense of already committed and organised groups in a top-down fashion in order to bolster the self-declared primacy of another group’s project.

AM: I am not so ideologically correct as to be hostile to a planned merger. I am as suspicious of ideologues as I am of theologians. What I could not abide by was the expulsion of workers from a union or the destruction of the licence. If people want to go into Unite, fine. At one time I would have considered it myself. It is a reformist move but then I have long since given up on revolution and more specifically on revolutionaries. My point is that there is no reason for them to shaft everyone else on the way or to surrender the licence. I think those things are what is renewing interest in the IWU again, certainly within Dublin where former members are outraged at what is going on and who are now calling in with us to offer assistance and advice. The branch meetings are now jampacked with people and it is serious stuff. Without exception, those who turn up see an existential threat to the IWU and are determined to protect it.

DK: You have to laugh. I mean, if the current leadership of the IWU believe that bolstering a Congress based alliance is their sole remit then they implicitly reject the very basis upon which the IWU was founded; they need a time machine to get themselves back to 2001 and not bother embarking on this endeavour in the first place, stay within their old unions and fight the good fight and all that noble stuff. Or better yet, they could move aside and let those who still believe in the possibility of an unashamedly left-wing trade union flourishing outside of Congress, carry on with the job.

AM: That type of union trying to flourish outside Congress is a wholesome concept and is worthy of support. I see Congress pretty much as I see the Labour Party – a useful condom to protect the political class as it goes about screwing the most disadvantaged.

DK: But that is not the attitude within the NEC some of whom I believe described us as ‘scumbags’ at the meeting where we protested. That workers, ordinary working men and women who want to belong to an independent trade union could be described in this way is shocking. Is it true what I heard?

AM: Unfortunately, yes. The NEC meeting that weekend was a bad-tempered affair. Would there be a different atmosphere at a hate fest for Blueshirts? I doubt it. Obviously, coming from the Left they are not Blueshirts, but the animosity towards working people who were merely seeking to unionise was as intense as you would be likely to find at any right-wing rally. It was not something I felt I wanted to be part of. It made me distinctly uncomfortable. I found it disconcerting and disquieting. It left a very bad taste in my mouth. While I have time for the individuals on the NEC, I no longer identify with it as an institution. I am only on it because I was elected to it by the membership. I have a mandate to represent the view of the members not the view of the NEC, even less the view of Brendan Ogle.

DK: And what about Ray O’Reilly, a founding member of our Union, is he to be considered a scumbag for supporting us?

AM: Well, this is the point. The Dublin branch members on the NEC were so incensed by this that when we attended a large meeting of our Postal Driver colleagues in Dublin the following day, we very pointedly made a statement of protest in addressing them as “Fellow scumbags and bastards.” They had already picked up on the scuttlebug, so we needed to make it very clear where we stood on the issue. For that reason, we asked to become honorary members of your branch. I know these things are symbolic but even as symbolism they are significant markers. Although I was treated in a most genial manner going into the NEC meeting – I did ask for permission to cross the picket line - we have since learned that there may have been some things shouted at NEC members as they walked into the meeting. I did observe the postal drivers bearing placards with “Traitors to Lenin and Connolly” stencilled onto them. That helped inflame the NEC so we in the Dublin branch would not wish to see them crucified over a rush of blood to the head in the heat of the moment where passions were inflamed and anger running high on both sides of the picket line. On reflection, do you feel the placards were the right thing or did the postal drivers over egg the pudding in their own anger about being expelled from their union?

DK: To be honest the protest was very much a last-minute decision but I'm glad we did it. The placards were organised by one of the lads off his own initiative and you know what, given what our lads have had done to them, I certainly wasn’t going to censor anyone. We could’ve had 50 attend the protest but just kept the numbers to a minimum as we were due to have our meeting the following day and couldn’t expect our members to mobilise on both days. You attended the NEC meeting yourself - what did you make of it?

AM: I know I can laugh now, but I very grimly stated at the NEC meeting that I supported both the picket and the legal action and was openly endorsed in that assertion by my colleague from the Dublin branch who was also in attendance. They took it on the chin. What else could they do? And then the chair did a remarkable job of driving the meeting on, thus preventing it from collapsing under the weight of rancour. But here is an insight into how heated it was. It was suggested at one point after the summons arrived that the NEC refuse to recognise the court and go to jail. When you think about it, when the dust settles nobody is willing to go to jail to defend something as disreputable as deunionising workers at the behest of Brendan Ogle. I think this sort of outburst be regarded as unsworn testimony. Maddening at the time, but not something people should be held to forever and a day and nailed to the cross over. There are still things I firmly believe are worth going to jail for, but they would be rooted in the tradition of defending the right of workers to be in a trade union, not expelling them from one. What we in the Dublin branch refuse to recognise is the right of the NEC to expel its own members to suit another union within the Congress Cartel. For that reason we attended the meeting the following day of the postal drivers. We continue to regard you as fellow IWU members. The amount of work your people have put into the Dublin branch, coming straight from your working day to spend hours working on cases for IWU members, going well beyond the call of duty, drawing on your experience to guide other members, doing face to face consultations with people in trouble in their workplace – this is what the IWU has been crying out for. The Dublin branch was effectively kept afloat by the efforts of one guy for years, its chair, using every spare minute of his free time. He was in the office more than he was at home, under constant pressure, getting his wife to help out. Then we get this serious input from the postal drivers and are told to drop you because it does not suit the agenda of a Congress Cartel union. Is it any wonder we are spitting nails?

DK: How would that NEC meeting contrast with the postal drivers’ branch meeting the Dublin branch later attended in solidarity with their expelled colleagues?

AM: Night and day. The genuine radical resolve at your meeting was uplifting after the disheartening experience from the day before. As the postal drivers see it - and we are in total agreement with them on it - their sole transgression was to insist on what our branch members demand at WRC and Labour Court hearings for working men and women: the right to union membership, the right to due process.

DK: … Will the Network Technicians be next in the firing line if the NEC gets its way?.

AM: Well, you know the old Pastor Niemöller quote … first they came for the postal drivers. We in the Dublin branch have a fear that if they get away with booting your people out, the network technicians will be next. They need to, otherwise how do they sell the union off to Unite come a vote of the members? We are being advised that the action against postal drivers might be an act of Mala Fides, a means to rig any future vote. If the NEC can unilaterally and unaccountably throw out whoever they want why would they not target the ESB workers?

DK: Something which seems to continually raise its head - and I saw it again hinted at by one of the Connolly Youth cadre on Facebook - is the idea that our lads were deceitful and scheming in some way; I suspect it’s a reference to our planned but ultimately cancelled industrial action. Am I missing something here - how did this rubbish get oxygen?

AM: The Dublin branch is very critical of this because it sees in it a Stalinist type smear used to blacken the drivers and make it easier for the NEC to issue its fatwa, citing that the postal drivers are not fit to be members of this union. Apart from the obvious - that it is perfectly legitimate for an employee to want to take industrial action - the NEC claim is demonstrably false. Dublin branch records prove this. No industrial action was taken. The postal workers did only what they had approval to do from the Dublin branch. The Dublin branch was in error not the postal drivers. When confronted and challenged by the NEC on the wisdom of their action they halted it. This is a democratic union where members, certainly in the past, took decisions after debate and discussion as promoted in the Members’ Charter. It is not a Stalinist body where smearing is the time-honoured response to criticism and dissent.

DK: I am sure that is not the only smear.

AM: Probably not. There is the suggestion that the postal drivers are involved in a bid to make a hostile takeover of the IWU. I don’t know if that is a smear or a belief but the spectre of the self-fulfilling prophecy raises its head.

DK: Never a consideration for us. Our conflict with the NEC came only with their attempt to shaft us. We wanted to be in the union, not to take it over. It is another smear to portray us in a bad light to other members who are not being informed about what is going on.

AM: It is a poor one now. The only hostile takeover that I can see is being initiated by Brendan Ogle as part of his expansionist strategy for Unite. There is nothing more hostile than deunionising members of a union to suit your own agenda. The Dublin branch is not amused.

DK: Perhaps you can explain the overall position of the Dublin branch?

AM: The Dublin branch sets out its stall very clearly. The branch supports the legal action by the Postal drivers, seeing in it no material difference from what the branch routinely does in the Labour Court and Workplace Relations Commission. It is wholly in the spirit of seeking legislatively approved redress against injustice for workers. The branch supports the protest action taken by our postal driver colleagues. The matter of what is on the placards is determined by freedom of expression which the Dublin Branch supports, even if it does not share the sentiments expressed. The right of workers to protest against those who do them an injustice is a well-established principle within union culture.

As the postal drivers in conjunction with the Dublin branch have as an objective the retention and preservation of the only independent trade union licence for general workers outside the Congress Cartel, the branch will discuss with the drivers the possibility of organising a series of discussions open to the public and press. The NEC will be invited along to make their case. Independent trade unionism is such a valuable societal concept in its anti-monopoly and anti-corporatism character, that it would be remiss to exclude the public from deliberations on the matter. There will also be a number of fundraising efforts to cover legal and campaigning costs. We would like the matter to be debated in the media, on radio if we can get there, where the Dublin branch is quite prepared to go head to head with the NEC in order to enhance public understanding of what the issues are. This is a crucially important fight. Tánaiste Simon Coveney has called for the consolidation of the trade union movement. The NEC is seemingly in agreement with him. This union and its licence, seen by some branch members as squeezed by Blueshirts on one side and Stalinists on the other, is an endangered species and in need of protection from both sets of predators.

The bottom line for the Dublin branch is that in a city plagued by homelessness the NEC has left workers without a union home. In a city infamous for the Great Dublin Lock-Out, we have workers locked out of their union. You would think the NEC would have some cop on, some sense of the history of this city. If you want to impose a lock-out of union members don't do it in Dublin. The Savage Eye couldn’t have scripted its absurdity.

Obvious Stitch-Up

A Press Release from The National Postal Transport Branch of the Independent Workers' Union. 

Postal Drivers formerly of the Communications Workers’ Union seek injunction preventing expulsion from the Independent Workers’ Union”.

It is with deep sadness and regret that we make public the actions of the General Secretary and the majority of the National Executive. It is beholden on union members to use the democratic structures of their union to resolve internal disputes rather than washing our dirty laundry in public. Similarly, the use of court injunctions against the union is normally a tactic of employers or the state in dispute against our members defending their rights. But in this case our members have been arbitrarily and illegally deprived of the democratic rights that our union handbook mandates them. Further the decision of the General Secretary and the majority of the National Executive to go against the explicit mandate of our recent National Conference, the sovereign body of the union, leaves us with no other course of action.

The unjustifiable and scandalous attempt to expel the An Post delivery drivers from our union is motivated by the demands of Unite the union’s chief organiser who has been in negotiations with our General Secretary with a view to amalgamating the IWU into Unite. In a letter to the Annual Delegate Conference of the IWU, the head of negotiations for Unite announced that the presence of the An Post drivers in the IWU was a barrier to any further progress to those negotiations. Additionally, upon request of the General Secretary of the IWU, he subsequently co-authored an ‘independent’ report into the circumstances upon which the Postal Drivers were taken into membership of the IWU, which ultimately recommended that the members concerned should return to the Communications Workers’ Union , thus resolving the matters stalling the amalgamation talks.

It is in that context that the first meeting of the National Executive after the ADC has passed this motion to begin the process of expelling the An Post drivers from the IWU. No other reason has been given, because no other reason exists.

What is at stake here is not only the constitutional rights of the An Post drivers to join a union of their choice, but the same right for all the workers on this island. The High Court of Ireland has upheld the right of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to forbid any member union from accepting into membership the ex-members of another ICTU union, unhappy with their representation. In effect, this means that the constitutional right of workers to join a union of their choice is invalidated by ICTU. The Independent Workers Union was set up specifically to afford workers caught in this hostage situation the opportunity to join a democratic union that would allow them to defend their rights within the law, by having access to a negotiating licence. The negotiating licence of the IWU is one of the last instruments outside the social partnership stitch-up between IBEC, ICTU and the state, available to workers on this island. The aim of the negotiations between Unite and the IWU General Secretary is to end that opportunity. In effect, the course of action the General Secretary and the majority of the National Executive have decided on, is to liquidate the independence of the Independent Workers Union and betray the very principles and purpose this union was founded for.

But this union and the negotiating licence it holds, is not the private property of the General Secretary and his supporters on the NEC. It belongs to the members of this union, the ESB workers and An Post drivers included, but not only them. And our most recent Annual Conference passed a motion declaring that no decision on the deal to amalgamate with Unite should be taken without a special conference at which all members of the union would have a right to attend, to be properly informed of all the consequences and a final decision to accept or reject the offer put to the vote of the full membership. It is this decision the General Secretary and his supporters on the National Executive, have unilaterally disregarded by attempting to illegally evict the An Post drivers from this union.

The union handbook states that members of the IWU join their local branch ,and the An Post drivers have joined the Dublin and General Workers union branch and have the full, unanimous support of that branch's committee and activist membership. We, the Dublin Postal Drivers’ Branch, entirely refute the right of the General Secretary and the NEC to expel our members without any pretext given, and are and will remain members in good standing of this union. We believe the right for all workers to the freedom to join a union of their choice is a fundamental right and we are prepared to fight for it by all necessary means, within the law.

Postal Drivers Seek Injunction


From The Journal a piece on a legal bid by Dublin postal drivers to prevent an attempt to deunionise them.

The drivers are being asked to resign from the IWU in order to allow it to merge with Unite.

Postal Drivers Are to seek an injunction in order to prevent their expulsion from the Independent Workers’ Union (IWU).

The Independent Workers’ Union was in talks to merge with Unite, one of the largest trade unions in the country. But Dublin postal drivers who are members of the IWU have claimed that Unite announced the presence of the An Post drivers was “a barrier to any further progress to those [merger] negotiations”.

Unite said that this was because they had no authority to represent these workers and their rights, adding that it cannot “even put forward and argument” for why they should represent postal drivers.

Continue Reading @ The Journal.

Dublin Postal Drivers Seek Injunction To Prevent Expulsion From Union

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)