Staff picket their own union in redundancy dispute

FOR one of the first times in the history of the trade union movement, one union picketed another in the centre of Dublin yesterday.

The Building and Allied Trades’ Union (BATU) was picketed by six of its own staff, all members of Unite trade union, for several hours yesterday and the protesters said they would return to protest on Monday. The dispute is over BATU making two of its senior officials, Tom Fitzgerald and Robert Kelly, redundant. The union claims there has been decreased levels of employment in the construction industry and that has affected BATU income. As a result, it has been forced to scale back on the number of officials. Tom Fitzgerald, who has eight years’ experience and Robert Kelly, who has four years, claim the union did not use the “first-in, last-out” approach preached by the trade union movement to employers.

They also say the union has refused to allow the matter to be heard in the Labour Court. The two men joined Unite trade union in advance of the redundancy notices. Irish Congress of Trade Unions general secretary David Begg has written to both unions, offering its services in resolving the issue and, failing that, has urged both parties to use the Labour Court.

At yesterday’s protest, Tom Fitzgerald said he was particularly incensed that BATU’s general secretary had crossed the picket line, something that is frowned upon in the union movement. “The only way I can see this being resolved is if the matter goes before the Labour Court. If their independent assessment is that the union was right in its action we will have no problem with that. But I have been replaced by a person with 13 months’ experience who I actually trained.” General secretary of BATU Paddy O’Shaughnessy said he understood why the men were angry, but he said a decision had been made by the union and it intended to stick to that decision.

He said there was no definitive policy of first-in last-out in the union and he said it did not have to be referred to the Labour Court because the Labour Relations Commission had already heard the case.