Dismissed workers fail to get jobs

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33739, 11 January 1975, Page 14

Dismissed workers fail to get jobs

The dispute at the rubber factory of Dunlop, Ltd, which provoked a one-day strike early in December, seems likely to flare up again after the workers return from their holidays on Monday.

Seven men were dismissed in the dispute, which was over bonus work, and the union decided to bring a case before the Industrial Court alleging that the men were dismissed without justification.

An industrial mediator brought in to decide the issue recommended that the men be given back their old jobs on Monday, Of the seven dismissed, one is on holiday in Ireland, but at least four of the rest have been out of work since they were sacked. The company told the men in a letter this week that they would follow the recommendation but, “In view of the lack of clarity in determining the level of pro-

duction required in the first quarter of 1975 due to the market situation, we must delay consideration of such re-employment until we are in a position to gauge the situation more precisely.” “RENEGING” The secretary of the Rubber Workers’ Union (Mr L. G. Morel) said the company was “reneging on the whole thing. They do not like the decision and they have decided that offering to re-employ the men and then telling them there are no jobs is the best way round it. “They are not complying with the recommendation, which specifies reemployment on Monday. If there is any question of redundancy at the factory then the men should be reemployed and the accepted principle of last on, first off adopted for cutting back staff. All these seven have long service.” However, the company manager (Mr A. McLachlan) said there was no question of redundancy of workers who were employed when

the year ended. “You must remember these men are not employed by us, they were dismissed, we believe legitimately.” Asked if this meant the company did not accept the mediator’s recommendation that the men be re-employed, Mr McLachlan replied, “No. You have seen a copy of our letter. We have not yet formed a clear picture of our employment needs for next year. We must get the situation clear before we make any moves.” Mr McLachlan declined to comment further because he considered the matter was before the Industrial Court. The union will hold a meeting of workers at the factory soon after they return. In the meantime, they are proceeding with the Industrial Court case, due to be heard in early February.