Jim Wyse is a 58 year old grandfather who has been working for Green Isle Foods as a maintenance engineer for many years. The Company is a subsidiary of Northern Foods PLC which is listed on the London Stock Exchange; has a turnover of c. €1 Billion; has c. 11,000 employees in the UK and Ireland; and has received €43 Million in state aid from the Irish taxpayer. Its consumer brands include Goodfellas and San Marco Pizzas, Fox’s Biscuits, Donegal Catch fish dishes, Grassington’s meals and Holland’s Pork Pies.
In July 2009 the Company dismissed 6 maintenance engineers (3 employed through a subcontractor) for breaches of the Company’s IT policy. Their Union commenced strike action on 31st. of August and also took the Company to the Labour Court which ruled, in January 2010, that the Company should reinstate the workers concerned. (Such Labour Court findings are not legally binding under Irish law but are very rarely disobeyed).
When the Company refused to implement the Labour Court Findings or engage with the strikers in any meaningful way, Jim Wyse, the local Union shop steward, decided to go on hunger strike in support of the dismissed employees even though he was not one of the employees dismissed. It is planned that an additional hunger striker will join him each week until the dispute is resolved.
There have been corporate attempts to spin the case as concerning the handling of pornographic or adult material by the dismissed workers and this initially had an impact on the public support and sympathy the strikers received. However the facts reveal it was much more about management attempts to blame junior employees for the mistakes of their managers – and a complete contempt for the Irish industrial relations process.
What follows is based on a lengthy interview with Jim Wyse and the Union submission to the Labour Court which has never been challenged by the Company:
On the 18th of December 2008 Green Isle Foods made available on their I.T. system a folder called “Boardroom”. Direct access was given to a maintenance engineer via an icon on his PC desktop and was available to anyone who mapped to that drive. During this period up to late March he regularly accessed the folder in an open plan office with Engineering managers present.
Towards the end of March 2009 the engineer became concerned about a file he found in this folder which planned for the loss of six engineering staff. He showed this file to some colleagues and his manager who subsequently reported the access to senior management. The Company issued letters to the engineers concerned stating that this was a most serious matter which could lead to their dismissal and calling on them to disclose to the Company the full extent of their involvement with information contained in the “Boardroom” folder.
The engineers met with their Union, the National Engineering & Electrical Trade Union (NEETU), which advised them that if management had an allegation or complaint to make against them, then they should set out their case. The Union wrote to the Company advising them that they would be happy to discuss the matter with the Company on that basis. However the Company has a policy of not recognising the Union and proceeded to issue solicitors letters to the engineers concerned and suspended them for failing to comply with the Company’s demands for further information.
The Union responded by serving notice of industrial action on the Company for suspending their members “without any specific allegation or complaint being made against them, without due process and adherence to the principles of natural justice, following two secret ballots…to secure their unconditional reinstatement as full time employees at work, pending the application of appropriate procedures including their right to professional representation by the TEEU before any view is formed by either Company as to the guilt or otherwise of the employees concerned”.
The Company responded by applying to the High Court for injunctions restraining the engineers from discussing the “confidential information” with others and pursuing orders requiring the engineers to disclose all information in their possession relating to the “Boardroom” folder.
Justice Lafoy heard the submissions on 1st. April and recommended that as there was no dispute concerning the facts in the case that the parties should engage in negotiations and return later in the day to record agreement or resolve any outstanding matters. Agreement was reached that provided inter alia for the return to work of the suspended workers and a commitment that they would reveal to the company their knowledge surrounding the “Boardroom” folder. At this stage computers normally used by engineering staff were removed from the premises by the Company.
The Company investigation continued through April and May and into June whilst the engineers lived in constant fear for their jobs as they were continually reminded that he alleged misuse of the IT system could lead to their dismissal. One fell ill and required counselling and the Union urged the Company to complete the investigation as quickly as possible.
On June 16th. the company started a second investigation regarding the storing of “inappropriate” material in the email in boxes on the PCs. The Union wrote to the Company on the 17th. of June and stated that due to the protracted nature of the “Boardroom” investigation and the anxiety and stress this had led to for the workers concerned that the Union now considered that investigation closed and that they would not be cooperating with any new investigation until the Company agreed to meet the Union to discuss the terms of reference of any new investigation.
On the 18th June (the following day) the Company issued its report on the first investigation including the findings by Compucenter (UK) which concluded, inter-alia that:
- Green Isle IT systems are not secure, protected or properly monitored
- There is no reason to conclude that any sensitive information was shared outside the Company (except the TEEU).
- That four named employees may have a case to answer under Company disciplinary procedures
The Company continued the new investigation into alleged inappropriate content in emails through a unilateral process which did not involve the Union or its members as they remained committed to their collective decision not to engage in any new investigation until at least the first investigation and disciplinary process had been completed.
On the 10th. July the Company dismissed the engineers and turned down their appeal on 23rd. July. The Union issued notice of industrial action and the Company turned down an offer of mediation from the Labour Relations Commission – the statutory body for the resolution of industrial disputes. The Union then referred the matter to the Labour Court and the strike began on 31st. August.
The Company responded by saying it is not their practice to recognise trade Unions and that they would not be attending the Labour Court. (In the event the Company were represented by IBEC, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, which made a submission to the Court). The Company also stated that it “would continue to progress the issue at local level through discussions with elected employee representatives”. This never happened.
The Union argued that the Green Isle employees do not have access to the internet or have any control over what e-mails can get through company firewalls or spam filters. Three non-business related e-mails regarded by the company as inappropriate were received from an external source – pavellong@googlemail.com – that should have been prevented by company firewall or spam filters. Even an employee who received, but never forwarded, such an e-mail was dismissed.
The Irish Times – Tue, Feb 16, 2010
On December 4th, 2009, the Labour Court issued a preliminary recommendation, that the parties negotiate a settlement, through an intermediary if necessary, and if no resolution can be found to revert to the Labour Court, who will issue a further recommendation.”
The TEEU accepted the recommendation. As the company refused to engage through IBEC or any other third party, the court issued a further recommendation on January 5th, 2010, stating that, “The court believes that the appropriate redress in this case is that the workers be reinstated without loss of pay and the court so recommends.”
The Company refused to implement the findings of the Labour Court and brought in foreign workers to replace the dismissed employees. However these were withdrawn following an alleged incident where a local nightclub was severely damaged. The Company did, however, engage the services of a PR consultancy, Drury Communications, specialists in Corporate Brand Protection.
Remarkably, much of the mainstream media publicity relating to the dispute focuses not on the findings of the Labour Court, but on the alleged handling of inappropriate “pornographic” or “adult” material by the employees concerned. This has had some impact in terms of reducing the amount of public support and sympathy that the strikers have enjoyed, but strenuous efforts are now being made to draw the attention of the public to the facts of the case as found by the Labour Court.
The strike has now continued for almost 6 months with picketers daily braving the worst winter in many years. Many strikers have been forced to return to work to support their families, but Jim Wyse, the Union shop steward (and not one of the dismissed employees) has decided, as a matter of principle, to start a hunger strike in support of the dismissed employees.
The hunger strike is a very evocative and emotive weapon in Irish History with many resonances in the struggle for national self-determination. It is planned that one further hunger striker will join Jim Wyse every week until the dispute is resolved. The Company has now agreed to mediation by two local politicians but no positive outcome is expected any time soon.
Jim Wyse is currently living in a Caravan parked outside of the Company’s premises in Naas and receiving many visits from supporters and increasing queries from local and national media. A website in support of the strikers has been created and you can sign a petition in support of the Strikers at the National Engineering & Electrical Trade Union website.
However the strike has yet to receive much exposure outside Ireland or in Leeds, in the United Kingdom, where Northern Foods has its Headquarters.
Readers may wish to contact the Company to express their concern for Jim Wyse’ health and to enquire why the Company has not recognised the Union (except in the High Court), accepted the Labour Court Findings, or otherwise attempted to resolve the matter through the officially recognised institutions of the Irish industrial relations system.
In doing so they have been disrespectful to the Irish people who have grant aided them to the tune of €43 Million, to the Labour Court, and to a long-standing tradition of cooperative and consensual resolution of labour disputes which have resulted in Ireland having one of the most successful and progressive labour relations systems in the world.
Readers might also wish to ask the Company why it has not disciplined the managers responsible for the lax security systems in the Company, and instead sought to dismiss junior employees who had little or no control over what data and e-mails they had access to and who did not leak sensitive information outside the Company? What role, if any, did the Company or its agents have in damaging the good names of the strikers by alleging that the dispute was primarily about inappropriate handling of pornographic or adult material when the facts speak otherwise and the primary responsibility lay with management?
Surely Northern Foods PLC shareholders and Board should be concerned at the lack of management, security and audit controls within the Company? Surely with behaviour like this towards its employees and the Irish industrial relations system, Green Isle and Northern Foods cannot expect the Irish or European public to support their brands in the future?
