Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 8 Sep 2020
THE LIQUIDATORS for Debenhams have withdrawn their backing for a deal with workers, following the occupation of two stores this morning and the arrests of some former staff.
Workers had occupied two stores in Dublin and Cork at 7am in response to an “insulting” redundancy settlement offered last week that would have reportedly seen €1 million in funds offered to former staff at the department store.
Several workers and protesters in the Dublin Henry Street store were arrested by gardaí, but are now being released from Store Street Garda Station.
Another store on Patrick Street in Cork was also occupied as part of a dispute that has lasted over 150 days.
In response to the occupation, the liquidators have withdrawn backing for the agreement.
“Late last night we indicated to Mandate that we were minded to withdraw support for the indicative settlement put forward to workers last Friday,” said a spokesperson for KPMG, which is running the liquidation of Debenhams.
“This decision was based on the reactions over the weekend from former employees and the likelihood that even if the proposal was passed by Mandates’ members it would not be accepted by many of them.
“Following the actions of certain people over night it has now become clear that the offer is not acceptable to the former employees and others.
“No further settlement agreements will be negotiated by the liquidators with the former employees.
“The liquidators are disappointed by these developments as they entered the discussions in good faith,” the spokesperson added.
Trade union Mandate has said that it is disappointed by the decision from KPMG.
Gerry Light, Mandate Assistant General Secretary, said: “This occupation will hopefully highlight the plight of the Debenhams workers and the changes needed to address tactical insolvencies.”
“These workers should never have been put in this position in the first place but inaction by successive governments has led to this and will lead to more actions like it unless something is done soon,” he said.
“Since day one of this dispute Mandate has actively been engaged in finding a satisfactory resolution for all Debenhams workers and is something that we intend to continue to do.”
Arrests
Patrick Street shop steward Valerie Conlon told TheJournal.ie that it was a “disgrace” that people had been arrested. “At the end of the day we’re asking for what we’re entitled to,” she said.
She said that the workers had planned to occupy the buildings for two days. “It is a peaceful protest so we hope they let us stay for two days, so we’ll see,” she said.
Workers in Patrick Street have told TheJournal.ie that gardaí have spoken to them, but the occupation is being allowed to continue for now.
The Debenhams workers have been protesting and campaigning across the country for a number of months for a fair redundancy settlement from their former employer.
Over 1,000 workers lost jobs across the country as a result of the closure of the Irish arm of the UK chain in April.
The company had four stores in Dublin, two in Cork and others in Galway, Limerick, Newbridge, Tralee and Waterford.
Debenhams workers have occupied stores in Cork and Dublin!
— People Before Profit (@pb4p) September 8, 2020
Laid off? Unionise, organise, occupy! pic.twitter.com/krv2CYZNWe
Some Irish workers had almost 30 years’ service at Debenhams.
Last week, trade union Mandate said that it had negotiated a potential resolution to the Debenhams dispute. Workers were to be balloted this week on the deal, but many have said that the settlement wasn’t enough.
Jane Crowe, the Henry Street shop steward, was among those arrested this morning. Earlier, she had had issued a statement in which she expressed her disappointment at the deal.
“To say that we are disappointed with Micheál Martin is an understatement. His government have had more than two months now to come up with a fair settlement – they need to do much better than this,” she said.
‘I’ll throw myself in the firing line’
Protesters are being released this morning from Store Street Garda Station. Speaking to reporters this morning, one of those arrested, Sean Powney, said he was taking action for his mother.
“It’s mostly for people I work with and my mother,” he said. He said she had worked in the store for many years.
“Mainly I’m doing this for her sake, because I can’t have her getting arrested. But I’ll surely throw myself in front of the firing line for her.”
Sinn Féin’s spokesperson for employment and workers’ rights, Louise O’Reilly, called KPMG’s decision to withdraw from the deal “unacceptable”.
“This is entirely unacceptable. A ballot is underway and it is vital that workers are given the space to make up their minds on this issue. KPMG must immediately re-engage with the workers and their representatives,” she said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Fair play to every one of them.
@RadioMikeOBrien: at least they will be happy that the principles of the few are intact, while their ex colleagues lose out on getting anything out of the liquidator. Poor situation. but there are no winners in this.
@Brynþór Patrekursson:
It is a matter of fairness, rights and equality.
For workers the unions are the big problem. They are forced to, and should, act independently. Now they should step up their own rank-and-file organisation.
It is workers on one side, and employers/unions on the other.
Watch out also for the pseudo lefts like Boyd Barrett, Murphy etc deceiving the workers. And watch Sinn Fein spoofing as well.
Form rank-and-file!
Fight the bosses!
Fight the unions!
@PV Nevin: what absolute nonsense, both Richard Boyd Barrett and Paul Murphy have consistently supported the Debenhams workers, visited the picket lines many times and spoke in the Dáil on their behalf which has been very welcomed by the workers.
@Conor Kennelly: Two trotskyite rich boys who never done a hard days work in their lives. Working class heroes both of them.
@Conor Kennelly: both of their submissions in the dail started off good, but then they added in nonsense that made it unacceptable to Irish law. While this administration is obviously a fudge on Irish law, looking for two years pay and putting individual pay ahead of state liabilities was ridiculous, and pure pandering. The offer of €1m additional when the company has no obligation under administration laws should have been embraced. Unions flupd up, the few that took it upon themselves to take over fluped up. Loser was the employees that needed the boost.
@Brynþór Patrekursson: btw… Just noticed on reports that some of those arrested were not even employees, just “casual middleclass marxists”.
@Conor Kennelly:
Their ‘support’ is pro forma. A sham of wordy verbiage.
If you think Boyd Barrett, and Murphy, are leaders of the working class, then you understand nothing. Working class leaders lead a fight, not pleadings for crumbs. Working class leaders fight for socialism.
@Alan Dillon: Neither of them are Trotskyists. They are phoneys. Anti-working class snakes in the grass.
Here is a Troskyist:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/08/ann6-s08.html
Part six of a series
One days pay per year of service!!
That’s really rubbing their faces in it.
You’d give it to a child to buy sweets….. I sincerely hope they win the battle for fair play……. . DON’T GIVE UP!!!
@Joe Toner: actually 11, which is significant to the few long term ex employees.
Should be a complete boycott of their online store until this is resolved. Best of luck to all of them.
Fair play to them, treated appallingly by the company and that so called offer negotiated by Mandate and KPMG is a joke clearly designed to pressure the workers into giving up their fight for fair redundancy. More power to them, up the workers!
Am I missing something here that they believe it’s Mícheál Martins issue. Private industry negotiating with union. Its a disgraceful offer but that’s not his fault. Taxpayers can’t step and top up everywhere people feel they aren’t getting what they want.
@Diarmuid: The Government failed to implement the Duffy Cahill report after the Cleary’s debacle. They still refuse to implement it. This would protect workers from this happening again. Debenhams are working within the law, but that doesn’t make it right. The law need to change but our Government only look after the fat cats, not the ordinary worker.
@Diarmuid: yes you are missing something
@Diarmuid: It was the taxpayers who had to pay for statutory redundancy when workers were abused by their employers. As far as I know legislation was passed preventing workers being abused by the likes of Debenhams. This legislation is sitting on a desk unsigned..Well done to the Debenham workers.
@cars: companies do fail… not all employers are fat cats and they dont even have social welfare to fall back on. the Duffy report was full of holes it prevented company restructuring which is normal practice during the life of a business.
@DeWitt: Restructuring? You mean separating the loss making from the profit making and the workers coincidentally happen to end up in the loss making side?
@DeWitt: Debenhams are fat cats
@Aidan O’ Neill: not really. Check their latest accounts.
@cars: fine gael, the party of law and order!!
@Fr. Fintan Stack: nope. Like separate companies for research and development, export specific, etc. Its normal if you need to raise capital
I am confused why do they expect anything above statutory? I have been made redundant twice and that was all I got. One of the companies ended up with a product that was €2million per licence as a result of the team I worked on. They sold it 12 times the following year. I didn’t feel like I was owed any of that money as I was paid for work I did.
@Craic_a_tower: because Debenham’s liquidated the hell out of everything to pad shareholder gains and screw over the workers. I get that companies can legally do this but doesn’t mean they should.
@Aidan O’ Neill: that doesn’t really explain why they think they should get more than statutory. The creditors are owed money the staff aren’t. They are getting paid and a package but want more. What is the logic that they are due more?
@Craic_a_tower: You were entitled to redundancy I’m sure the Senior management and shareholders would not have suffered the same fate as you did..If you are happy in not willing to fight for your rights ..that’s your choice, but thank Christ others who are willing to fight.
@Donal Desmond: fight who? Debenhams are gone the liquidator is in place. he has to pay suppliers, etc. the worker got their ENTITLEMENT… so?
@Donal Desmond: yes I was entitled to it and I got it as they are. Their rights are being met. The question remains why should they get more? You and others are not answering that. When taking a job terms of employment are agreed so if senior management agree better terms when being hired that is their right too. You really aren’t explaining what rights they don’t have. The shareholders have lost money and the management lost their jobs. You just sound angry but can’t explain what the issue is. The company was losing money and not viable.
@DeWitt: No the workers did not get their entitlements, Why should Debenhams be allowed to walk away. How many time have workers being wronged with the tact approval of governments of the day. Clearys, Vita Cortex in Cork. The workers in Cork occupied the premises for months. Thankfully they were well supported by the people of Cork and won their case. Funny you fail to mention the comment and legal obligations that Debenhams agreed with the workforce . You condem the workers for fighting for their rights, Yet you do not mention the company that has abused their work force .
@Donal Desmond: they paid the worker for the work done. Hardly abuse. The workers got statutory payment.
@Donal Desmond: what entitlements did they not get?
@Craic_a_tower: Some of the workers have been working for the company for 30 years and would end up walking away with a thousand or so odd quid. Is 30 years of someone’s labour worth about a thousand euro to you? While shareholders haven’t lost out, the people who have litterally allowed the company to exist are being left behind. There’s your answer. Jesus christ the fact people are even arguing about this is grim , get a grip.
@Craic_a_tower: statutory redundancy pay is 2 weeks per year plus one extra year. This isn’t what was offered. Someone with over 20 years was offered less than €1500.
@Frankie Cappuccino: they are entitled to 2 weeks of pay for every year plus 1 additional week. So 61 weeks of pay with a limit of €600 a week. So €24k minimum. Where are you getting they only getting a thousand euro as their package? The additional amounts are not statutory payments. They are looking for more. If that is not the case point to something saying different because it isn’t in this article. I am open to correction but the state guarantees statutory redundancy.
@Mirabelle Stonegate: not true. The issue is they originally thought they would get 4 weeks per year and it was reduced to statutory. It is in the Irish times. That does seem nasty but not what you are saying which is simply untrue.
@Craic_a_tower: Because someone I know who worked for the company for over 30 years is being offered just over a thousand euro, that’s the whole issue here.
@Frankie Cappuccino: they are lying or you are. They are getting statutory.
I will admit I didn’t know that others got 4 weeks before which really seems to be the issue. That I can understand but that is how redundancy works. The first to leave get a better deal so the rest of the staff stay. Happened to my wife when she got a great deal and people stayed thinking they would get the same later. That doesn’t happen you get less.
@Craic_a_tower: Your right actually we’re both lying I’m only arguing with you here on a Tuesday morning for the craic. I know someone personally who has worked for the company for over 30 years and isn’t getting 10% of your mentioned 24k.
@Frankie Cappuccino: so the Irish times is lying? The legal requirement for Debenhams to have a redundancy and insolvency fund doesn’t exist? I have provided proof you should be able to do the same. Either the person telling you is lying or you are lying about knowing a person making up the claim. There is no alternative at this point. I at least know why they are complaining now but not why you continue to make a claim so easily disproved.
@DeWitt: The workers are entitled under law to statuary redundancy. Not the pittance agreed to by the union who failed in their duty to consult with the workforce. Is it not an incitement on our society where people defend companies and vulture companies who with the blessing of successive governments that allow big business carte Blanche to do what they want . Certain people will be first to criticise workers for defending their rights, Yet remain silent concerning the banks, big business facilitated by politicians brought this country to it’s knees.
@Donal Desmond: they are getting statutory redundancy!!!!!!! Read the link I posted. If you have evidence they are not, provide this information. It is a legal requirement of companies over a certain size to have a redundancy and insolvency fund to protect such pay. They want more as other people made redundant before got 4 weeks per year. Prove your claim and explain why the Irish Times is lying and how the company dodged their legal requirements every tax year
@Mirabelle Stonegate: Can they not get statutory plus the €1500? Are they being fobbed off with less than €1500 in total for over 20 years service and no statutory redundancy?!
@Tara: no they are getting statutory redundancy and were offered more which has now been taken off the table. There are people here who don’t understand that the money was on top and claim it was the entire payment. That is not the case. A person with 30 years will get at least €24k calculated on minimum wage and 40 hour week. You would expect somebody with 30 years experience to be on more than minimum wage but the cap is €600 a week so max €36600 in statutory.
@DeWitt: The workers have received nothing. All of them are owed outstanding wages as well as holiday pay, on top of redundancy.. statutory or otherwise.
@Craic_a_tower: Mirabelle and a couple of the outraged haven’t read the details. Everyone is entitled to statuary redundancy, and a liquidator can decide to provide more by allocation of resources. The socialists are claiming that the company (which owes €200m+) should give more, as per previous deals, but the liquidator doesn’t have to. They offered this €1m package in addition to statuary, which the mandate employee accepted, but then employee representatives broke into three property, causing the liquidator to redo the maths.
@Frankie Cappuccino: they got there wages every week they were employed for the work they did I belive , so unless they own shares in debenhams i dont know what they think there entitled too? They got statutory right? Move on get another job…..life isn’t fair sometimes so put on your big boy pants and keep on trucking…..it was just a cheap clothes shop who relied heavily on cheap slave labour for there product so not a great loss to our society really….
@Tara: from my understanding, listening to workers on the radio over the months, they haven’t gotten penny, statutory or otherwise. I might be wrong, but I’m just basing This on multiple interviews on the radio.
I wouldn’t trust anything the other side are saying, tbh. A couple of weeks back, KPMG announced that everything was sorted and The protests were no longer legal.. This was factually incorrect. So.. I’m not inclined to believe kmpg saying this 1 million was a top up.
Besides, if they were contracted to get 4 weeks redundancy pay, and dont get that that’s a breach of contract.
Good for them, lets hope the fat cats wake up now & give them their entitlements
What the workers seem to fail to understand is that when a company goes into liquidation there is only so much of the pie to share out.
The Share Holders, the Debtor’s and the Staff are all looking for their slice.
People are shouting about “Fat Cat” Share Holders. But in reality many if not most of those funds belong to Pension Funds. And they will be lucky if they see 25 cent in every Euro invested. It will be ordinary workers trying to save for their pensions that are losing out. But hey let’s just shout about some abstract “Fat Cats”.
Then come the Debtors. Most of those will have been the Stock Manufacturers. Already struggling with a worldwide recession and less incoming orders, they want to send them into liquidation and bankruptcy and thus put more people out of work.
So what’s left are those that worked in the Stores. And they will get what is theirs by law, and were offered a little extra of what was left. But decided that it is not enough. But there is only so much of the Pie to share out and the first two get their portion first. Now that they have thrown out the offer of the extra money, “they have cut their noses off, to spite their faces” all they are going to get is the statutory amount.
@Mick.: well explained. However I dont think the lefties want to hear facts when ideals, principles and of course entitlements are in play
@Mick.: In a liquidation, the liquidators get paid first, then the employees get their statutory entitlements, anything left is shared pro-rata among the creditors (e.g. suppliers) and it would only be if the creditors were paid 100 cents in the € that the shareholders would then get a dividend. It happens but it as rare as hens’ teeth for the shareholders to get any return.
@Patrick Brompton: And like I said it’s the likes of Pension Funds who would be the majority shareholders. The investors in those funds are ordinary working and retired people.
@Mick.: the problem is when the company uses liquidation of one section as a mechanism to pay less than what is owed (to suppliers or employees), despite other areas of the company being liquid at very least, rather than a company actually needing to go into liquidation.
@Mick.: pension funds are massively diversified. One poor performing stock in a fund would not make much of a difference.
@DeWitt: Don’t think it was the (Lefties) that caused this mess. Perhaps you should look to the capitalist system that is geared to defend big business at the expense of the workers.
@Aidan O’ Neill: It all adds up. With the global recession as deep as it is, Debenhams is not the only company in trouble. A few sectors seem to be riding this storm such as Pharma and Tech but manufacturing in general and retail/hospitality seem to be the biggest loser’s. So a little here and a little there all adds up when taken as a whole.
@Aidan O’ Neill: AFAIK, the taxman is the first that needs to be settled, and the liquidator had to put aside 20% of Debenhams resources to revenue/us first.
@Donal Desmond: the system that takes risk and creates work.
Did they not sign a deal just the other day? Lads we talk about Boris reneging on deals, time we start treating these unions with the same disdain if this is how they carry on.
@nazi killer: they were offered and rejected a deal
@nazi killer: what you think workers should just accept any crumb that’s thrown to them regardless of how bad the offer is, I imagine if you were in this position you’d think differently
@Jim Buckley Barrett:
They were offered pittence… And you know it! Show a bit of support to the underdog… Go on try it…. You’ll feel better for it!!!!
@Joe Toner: joe. What are you on about? I’m correcting nazis comment that they broke a deal, they were offered a deal – a terrible deal but still a deal which they promptly rejected. They are not breaking any deal as nazi would have you believe
@nazi killer: the Union leadership negotiated the deal and asked the workers to accept it which the workers promptly rejected. There’s a distinction between the union leadership and union members.
@Jim Buckley Barrett:
Sorry Jim if I misunderstood. Meant no malice….. Just as mad as hell at the way these people are being treated…..
@Joe Toner: fair enough Joe, stay safe.
@Jim Buckley Barrett: read the article. They have yet to be balloted on the deal so how could they reject it
@nazi killer: there was no deal
@John Buckley: it looks like the company and union negotiated a deal. The union (not employees) then discussed this with actual employee reps who rejected it and started this occupation. No deal was ever presented to actual employees, and it has now been renaged as there is a) no obligation for payment under liquidation and b) the employees have not put forward representation that can make a deal.
End result: liquidator saves a few quid, store staff are left with nothing, union employees get paid and loudest ex-employees get headlines and publicity.
@nazi killer: The union agreed to the deal . The problem is the union failed to return to the membership to sanction the deal. At the time of the economic crash , Union leadership especially the likes of David Begg,Jack O’Connor betrayed the membership by agreeing to draconian austerity measures to repay for the gangsterism of the banks and developers facilitated by politicians. Pay cuts , loss of basic rights were given away. The same Begg who when retired was appointed to state boards or O’Connor who intended to stand for election for the so called Labour party. That certainly was flogging a dead horse. Paracites who destroyed the lives of the people they were supposed to represent.
@nazi killer: Like Boris the union failed to bring the terms of the deal to the membership. It is obligatory to return to the membership for approval or rejection..I am quiet sure you would not sign an agreement if you were not informed of terms and conditions.
@Conor Kennelly: So at least one of the people arrested for “occupying” ( illegally entering) the building didn’t work for Debenhams ? It appears the workers protest has been hijacked by far left rent a mob “activists”. The workers will end up with nothing, but the principle of it is more important eh ?
What kind of society are we living in? Workers made redundant , then refused a decent & dignified redundancy demonstrate and occupy the empty building are arrested ?
@Isabel Oliveira: €1900 for full-time worker who has over 20yrs service and half that for a part-time is decent and dignified???. Are you joking.
@Ian Hoey: did they get paid for their work during the 20 years?
@Isabel Oliveira: whats dignified by occupying someone else property?
@Ian Hoey: She means they were refused a decent redundancy (not that they refused a decent redundancy)
@Ian Hoey: 2 weeks and 1 day for each year of service, so 44 weeks for someone with 20 yrs done, you reckon that’s only €1900???
Yesterday the CEO of Debenhams was on the BBC or Sky? Anyhoo the parent company is in administration in the UK and according to him will survive “after serious restructuring ” he then went on with a sob story about trading conditions blah blah, but let out that the company has over £60m in “free cash flow ” now for a company who is allegedly struggling that is a huge amount of money.
I simply cannot see why this money, or a portion of it can be used to pay proper redundancy to staff here.
I will stand corrected on this but I think the Irish operating company is a separate entity from the UK but my point stands if Debenhams UK has this money it needs to be used.
@PaulOMahoney Irish: 60m is nothing compared to their debts. should suppliers not get paid.
six arrested and being held in store street garda station get down and show support if around town
what about the workers in the supplier companies. they have rights as well.
“We’re asking for what we’re entitled to.” Says all you need to know.
@Ludie Creech: except they are getting what they are entitled to they want more
@Craic_a_tower: by what standard are they “entitle” to anything. If the company should freely choose to offer them compensation, that’s great. But for one to insist they are “entitled” to something someone else has, is borderline extortion. Don’t get me wrong, the company should do and provide everything they are contractually obligated to do/provide. Beyond that, anything else they choose to do or not do is completely up to their discretion. Such entitlement mentality is a plague on much of the global culture.
@Ludie Creech: the law says what they are entitled to. For every year of service over 16 they get 2 weeks pay up to €600 with an additional week on top. A company of a certain size must have a redundancy fund to pay this which is ring fenced so not a company asset just a legal requirement. It is an entitlement of employment not extortion in any shape. What they are trying to do is get more from the company’s assets and I agree the method is a form of extortion along with intentionally misleading the public to think they are getting less than they are.
@Craic_a_tower: Thanks for the clarification. Very helpful. Again, I believe the company should provide everything they are legally/contractually obligated to do. I appreciate the employment law lesson. Cheers.
@Craic_a_tower: but you failed to mention the 2 weeks per year plus statutory agreement being renaged on by the company in your last sentence.
@Fr. Fintan Stack: no I didn’t. I pointed out it is unclear if the company offer 4 weeks or it was an assumption due to the last redundancy package. If you have proof the company did that I would love to read it. That would be poor behaviour but not illegal or a change to anyone’s rights. The company could have said that but the liquidator actually decides in the end who are independent of the company. They asses the assets and follow the law.
Solidarity
what are the suppliers who are owned money. are they not “entitled”… the workers want it all.
Victory to the workers!
disgraceful behavior. no respect for law. they are being offered their statuary payment, but want more. why are they so special.
@DeWitt: I wonder if Grant management services are happy to have someone like this working for them.
@DeWitt: didn’t understand this myself the issue is the last redundancy they gave 4 weeks per year. So the staff were expecting the same. It is unclear if the company said this would be the case at any point so that is the issue. People claiming they are only getting a small amount are wrong. There is a slight issue in liquidation procedure not being followed but the company do not have to offer more.
@Fergus Lynch: not sure.
Blame the unions on this from start to finish. How the unions and the staff expected the company to continue trading. Their demand were too much. Floor supervisors getting €59 per hour for Sunday and bank holidays. Checkout staff getting €29 for same. Not sustainable. M & S staff are the same. Give it time an they will follow.
Boycott Debenhams online… They don’t deserve the support of the Irish shoppers! Support the Irish businesses and workers…..
So a lot loose out to a few idiots, KPMG have done the correct thing and pulled the offer, why negotiate with people who will never be happy and have tried to bully them into what they want? Also if PBP support the workers why not pay them what their after themselves?
@Bikes rule the world: they want what they are entitled to, under their employment contracts. Their contracts stated 4 weeks per year redundancy. This is not what they are getting.
So what is the government doing about this appalling treatment of the workers,
Workers rights have gone down the toilet from the day we joined up with the EU Mafia
Journal is restricting what I really want to say about the Kildare Street heads in the trough .
@John fitzpatrick: what rights are they not getting?
@Craic_a_tower: dont introduce facts please. This is all about communist ideals.
@John fitzpatrick: Go back to bed. You’re still drunk.
@Craic_a_tower: are you reading the same article
Stay OFF the craic
Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of how industrial relations and the law actually works. It is illegal for any union to drag unrelated companies into a secondary dispute. The union would soon find itself in court and have its assets frozen if it attempted to do so.
@Alan Dillon: A union tried to do this a few years ago(possibly related to a Dublin Bus Strike) and it didn’t end well for them
They’d actually be better off using the energy to look for another job. The company is bust (it was obvious it was going under about 3 years ago). The workers could spend another 6 months protesting and still get nothing. It’s tough but that’s the way the economy works
@Virgil: the company is not bust all there shops in the UK are open the irish staff are right to fight for their rights
@Margaret Kane: they aren’t the same company.
@Craic_a_tower: there Debenham stores enough said
@Margaret Kane: I guess you mean “they are”, and no that is not how it works. It is particularly childish response too.
Keep going boys and girl fk disgrace the way there being treated ✌✌✌
Fact is this occupation is legally classed as a burglary which is a felony and not trespass which is a civil crime. Once the Liquidator goes to court and gets an injunction to remove them the Gardai will have no choice but to enter the property arrest and remove them. Following this, they will be charged with burglary and they will be convicted and then have a criminal record. If they do any damage to any property within they can be jailed but even if not they have now made themselves unemployable
The state again backing big business and banks etc against the workers. They only want a fair deal, that is all.
@Paul Cahoon: So most of the Share Holders who being Pension Investment Funds of ordinary working and retired people are now “Big Business”?
And who do you think will make up the losses the Banks take? Would it be those small businesses seeking loans through higher charges and interest payments by chance?
Like dominoes set in a line there is a knock on effect, unless someone removes a role or two to create a break. And that is the Governments job, creating that break to prevent that knock on effect.
@Paul Cahoon: I’d be curious as to your definition of “fair deal”. By what standard would you deem any “deal” as “fair” or not?
@Paul Cahoon: the state backs the rule of law first and foremost. It has both statuary redundancy scenes and administration to ensure that business don’t fleece the state and employees. It’s why the employees and taxman got something, and those roles enable us to treat all companies the same and give them safety. It’s not some billionaire on a boat these laws protect – it’s us.
Appalling treatment of staff truly is shocking, yet we’d Leo recently sending his kind words to soon to be redundant Brown Thomas staff yet not a peep to the less glamourus lot in Debenhams. Those saying tough luck and shame on workers/unions for bullying KPMG etc, I hope you never end up in a similar position to the workers. Pig ignorant comments here as usual.
Joe Duffy will sort it out, look what he did with the bank of Ireland, Talk to Joe
Is anyone understanding that the company is bankrupt, and hasn’t made a profit for years in Ireland.
The deal is an insult if only Mandate leadership fought like the Debenhams workers. If Mandate had mobilised it’s full membership the bosses and the government could have been put under real pressure and not dragged on 150 days.
Win or lose the Devenhams workers have set a high water mark with lessions for workers fighting for their rights.
@SéanM: very uneducated comment. They are getting statutory redundancy so in your mind it is an insult every time somebody is made redundant. You also suggest the unions act illegally and risk their existence by acting like gangsters.
KPMG are hachet men Debenhams should be ashamed of themselves as should the Irish government who hide everytime people lose there jobs disgraceful
Withdrew an offer staff weren’t happy with
its an absolute disgrace how they can arrest these people fighting for what they should have gotten from the very start shame on them and the government does nothing as usual ….take them all on and fight fight fight you have great support out there don’t give up
@Elizabeth Eccles: police have no shame
@Margaret Kane: look at them enforcing the laws of the country. How dare they!!!!
Gerry light is general secretary not assistant secretary anymore. John Douglas has retired
have your say