Update: Mandate Members in Dunnes Stores
Friday 6 February 20151. The company wrongly accuse the union and the members of not engaging in accordance with the requirements of the Grievance Procedure. Nothing could be further from the truth and the written records clearly speak for themselves. Notwithstanding this procedural smokescreen the letter goes on to clearly state that the company has no intention of directly engaging with the Union as the procedure stipulates.
2. The company gave pay increases only after receiving formal claims from the Union and on one occasion they gave it the day before a Labour Court hearing to grant the increase.
3. It is mentioned on a number of occasions that all employees freely entered employment with the company on the terms offered. This suggests an attitude of, if you don’t like it then leave.
4. The company claims that the Union is generating concern and fear in relation to issues that “do not exist” as if the Union was making it up. Well, if the recent Decency for Dunnes Workers Survey taken by 1,200 workers is anything to go by there are serious and significant issues being raised by Dunnes workers and to claim that they don’t exist is an insult. For example: 98% of workers want more stable hours; 85% say insecurity of hours and rostering is used as a method of control over workers; 88% feel they are not treated with dignity & respect; 98% of workers want Dunnes to respect their right to trade union representation.
5. The suggestion that there is an “open door” culture in the company and that managers are available to deal with problems at all times flies in the face of how workers claim they are treated on a daily basis.
6. Contrary to the suggestions contained in the letter the Union is not attempting to “legally force” the company to the negotiating table. Collective strength and determination is the only way this can be achieved.
7. It is suggested that the company “wholeheartedly endorses” each employees right to join a Union but then goes on to state that there is no intention by the company to engage with the Union. This approach treats Union members with contempt and grossly insults their individual and collective intelligence.
8. There is a clear and crude attempt made to scare and threaten employees by suggesting that if the dispute goes ahead “redundancies and layoffs” will ensue. This is behaviour of the lowest form and should be given the response that it deserves.
