Union to refer Dunnes dispute to Labour Court

Mandate is to refer the dispute at Dunnes Stores' Terryland branch in Galway to the Labour Court today

Mandate is to refer the dispute at Dunnes Stores' Terryland branch in Galway to the Labour Court today. It has accused the company of breaking the court's Code of Practice for Employee Representatives by refusing to allow union shop stewards to attend a disciplinary hearing on behalf of a suspended member.

Last night the workers at Terryland decided to return to work this morning and to ballot for strike action. Earlier the union had called a meeting in Galway tonight of its 200 members at Terryland, many of whom have also been suspended for unofficial action in support of their colleague, and asked them to return to work.

Members had been refusing to abandon their unofficial pickets in support of a colleague suspended early last week for allegedly eating in an area where food was being prepared.

Dunnes Stores has accused the union of failing to provide any leadership to end the dispute. It said in a statement last night: "Unofficial action is only likely to be ended when senior union officials involve themselves directly on the ground with their members. Unofficial action is unacceptable, contrary to agreed procedures and the union's own rules."

READ MORE

It added: "Any company must question the value of entering into agreements with a union which cannot ensure compliance with agreed procedures." Mandate's national industrial officer, Mr John Douglas, reacted angrily to the company statement. He said that he had been in touch with members on the ground since the dispute escalated last Thursday and the company suspended 174 members.

"I've been waiting since Good Friday, when I had my last conversation with the company's chief operations executive, Mr Andrew Street, for him to come back to me. Despite numerous phone calls and faxes from Mandate, Dunnes Stores have failed to make any direct contact with the union."

Mr Douglas said that the central issue from the union's point of view was that the company recognised Mandate's right, and that of its members, to decide their own representation at disciplinary hearings.