Ferenka

Ferenka

THE BIGGEST SINGLE JOB LOSS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE 26 COUNTIES

AS SEEN FROM THE WORKERS SIDE

Compiled for the Bottom Dog group by Pat O'Connor Joe Harrington Mary O'Donnell. We would like to extend special thanks to the following Steve McDonagh Jim Pidgeon Former Ferenka shop stewards who checked the draft of this pamphlet for factual errors.

INTRODUCTION

What really happened at Ferenka?

The guestion has been asked many times since the Annacotty, Limerick, plant closed its gates on 28 November, 1977, putting 1,400 people out of work. Many different answers have been given: some have argued that the company simply withdrew because it could see no prospect of large profits; others that the irresponsible actions of the workers destroyed a viable concern. In lighthearted moments even the influence of a "fairy tree" has been blamed. Other questions have been aksed: Did the company deliberately precipitate the strike that preceeded shutdown? Was the workforce simply strike-happy?

Were the shopfloor representatives wild hotheads?

And so on. This pamphlet does not aim to answer all the questions.

It is published for two reasons.

Firstly, although newspapers have devoted many hundreds of column inches to the problems of the Dutch multinational, the frustrations of middle Management, and the setback for Fianna Fail's job creation programme, little or no attention has been paid to the people most affected, - the 1,400 workers at the Ferenka factory. From the very beginning the BOTTOM DOG was involved in the strike and occupation; it co-operated closely with the Ferenka workers and shopfloor representatives. We do not pretend to put forward the arguments on all sides; but generally we attempt to detail the Ferenka events from a working class point of view. , Secondly, the Ferenka closure has resulted in calls for the outlawing of unofficial strikes and for the rationalisation of trade unions. It has been held up as an example of what happens if unions and union "militants" are not brought to heel. This

pamphlet takes Ferenka as an example which suggests guite different conclusions, and shows that the workers and their organisations are in no way responsible for the disastrous state of industrial relations in Ireland. We hope that this pamphlet will provide valuable lessons for workers who find themselves in a similar situation to that which arose at Ferenka, And we hope that it will help any trade unionists wishing to resist further intervention by the state in the affairs of the trade union movement, November 1978 Ferenka was a subsidiary of Enka, one of the group of companies which made up Akzo.

PART =

Towards the end of 1977 a minor disruption of work took place at the Ferenka factory in Annacotty, Co. Limerick. Production ceased when a man refused to carry out certain tasks - cleaning toilets - mopping of floors in the main canteen area - giving out tea at the main tea break. The man was employed as a machine operator and declared that these were not the duties of a machine operator. His colleagues on the 4 to 12 shift agreed with him and when he was given a final warning and suspension they went on unofficial strike for his reinstatement and the removal of the final warning from his files.

In normal circumstances this dispute would have taken its place in the long line of unofficial strikes which took place at the plant over the preceding 5 yeats. However, this time decisions were being taken among the workforce and their shopfloor representatives on what should be done about ending an ongoing situation in which they found themselves forced to take frequent unofficial action.

(I) THE STRIKE

The first hint that a large section of the Ferenka production workers were considering leaving the ITGWU came on 25 September. In a press statement, Philip Byrnes, Chairperson of the ITGWU Union Committee in the factory said that "we will be meeting tomorrow (27 September) to decide if we will withdraw frou the Transport Union."

This meeting took place at the Savoy in Limerick and was attended by 450 of the 900 Ferenka production workers. After discussing the

quality of the service provided by the ITGWU over the years the meeting decided by 426 votes to 24 to leave that union and join the Marine Port and General Workers Union (MPGWU).

On the next morning, 28 September, production resumed at the Annacotty plant. In negotiations with Management the ITGWU officials had been given assurances that machine operators would not be asked to do cleaning work again.

Also, the workers were later to claim, Richard Coveney, a staff industrial relations manager at the plant, gave assurances that there would be no victimisation of the workers involved in the stoppage. This should have been the end of a dispute, which, to most outside observers, seemed to be the result of misunderstandings, aggravated by petty and heavy-handed management reactions. However, this was not to be. On 3 October less than a week after the return to work, management placed the following announcement on the factory notice board.

"FolLowing Last week's unofficial work Stoppage, your company has found it necessary to again emphasise that it wikk not accept efforts to enforce a solution by actions outside of the procedures agreed between the company and the unions. "Consequently, we have, as on previous similar occasions, taken disciplinary action against persons Seen to take a Leading role in the unofficial picketing. "The actions ane as follows : ata The chairman of the shop steward committee has been Suspended pending an investigation by the Labour Court of his recent activities in regard to the unofficial stoppage. "In deciding upon this action we have borne in mind that the Labour Court in Atd neport dated 7 Aprtl, 1975, enrticrised the present chairman who was then a Shop stewand for his persistent refusal to abide by agreed unton/company procedures.

"The report recommended that a pertod of Suspension and a final warning be imposed for the offence. "In the events of Last week, the chacrman again demonstrated his unwillingness to follow agreed union/company procedures.

This resulted in unnecessary financial Loss to both employees and the company.

"A number of Shop stewards who were positively identified as having taken part in the unofficial picket have been suspended for one week from October 3, and have been given a fdnal warning.

"This action has been carried out in accordance with the works rules. "Similar action taken by the company in previous guch situations has been upheld by the Labour Court. "The management of your company wishes to emphasise that it remains available to discuss with authorised representatives any outstanding grievances on matters of mutual interest." It should be remembered that the company took these decisions after, for all practical purposes, admitting that it was at fault in the dispute.

However, it soon became clear that there was more involved than a heavy-handed management sticking to the letter of the Works Agreement. Following the return to work, the people who had left the Transport Union were having such startling success in winning the other production worker to their point of view that the initial 426 converts to the MPGWU had become 790 in a few days: As word of the suspensions got around, picketing was immediately resumed and was respected by all production workers.

(2) STRIKE IS MADE OFFICIAL

On Wednesday, 6 October, the 24 hour picket on the Ferenka plant was declared official. Ata meeting of several hundred workers at the Savoy addressed by Frank Ellis, President of the MPGWU, Seamus Redmond, 'ts General Secretary and John Browne, Branch Secretary, the former received a standing ovation when he declared the strike official and *hat “the MPGWU would back the workers all the way in the big struggle ahead," The weeks that followed saw charge and countercharge from the unions and the Feréenka management.

The company claimed that they were losing £20,000 every day the strike lested and threatened that the situation could iead to Ferenka pulling out of Ireland completely.

The interunion difficulties began to get worse.

Philip Byrnes, spokesman for the strikers claimed that down through the years the ITGWU had been "policing" the workers for the company and that the issue was not just the suspensions but also concerned bad wages and bad working conditions.

LETTERS

In a letter to the Limerick Leader, Vincent Moran, branch Secretary of the Limerick No. 2 Branch of the ITGWU said that "The ITGWU has a commitment to the whole anea in the matter of wages and conditions, Andustrial expansion, job creation, ete.

The Marine Port has none. It (ITGWU) wikl not be deterred from pursuing these objectives by false propaganda and distortion of the facts by a hardline minority of dissidents within the community." This particular statement had the effect of hardening anti-ITGWU feeling among Ferenka production workers. Many of them felt that Moran was implying that they were being led around like sheep by a few individuals.

Also, the "dissidents" referred to by him had, in fact, been democratically elected by the workers themselves. In an interview with the Bottom Dog at the time Philip Byrnes summed up the reaction of the workers to Moran's statement when he said "AS a Shop Stewards Committee we have been democratically elected by the workers under the nukes of his own union and this method of attacking us amounts to insulting the whole workforce which he ckaims to represent.

But quite honesthy, for an estimation of our worth we would prefer to depend on the opinion of the Ferenka workers rather than on the personal opinion of someone who has | not even been elected to his own posrtion.

In the same letter Mr. Moran claimed that "The statement made by Mr. P. Byrnes that over 700 workers had Left the 1.T.G.W.U.

4s not in accordance with the facts, insofar that the regulations governing inten-union transfers, as Laid down by the Inish Congress of Trade Unions, were not adhered to by the Marine Port Union. "Congress regulations provide that a member cannot transfer to another uncon without the permission of hts present union. Therefore, under the Rules of Congress (acting for 99 unions in the Republic), the entine work force at Ferenka ane stilk members of the 1.7.6.0." It should be noted here that the ITGWU official did not reject the claim that almost 800 production workers had opted for the MPGWU but merely pointed out that the proper I.C.T.U. procedure for changing unions had not been adhered to.

(Rule 47D).'

SOME GO IN

For the first week following the suspension of the strike leaders less than 40 of the production

workers passed the picket (Office workers who were members of T.A.S.S. and the ITGWU and craftsmen who were members of N.E.E.T.U. and E.T.U. had been passing the picket all the time). The strikers had procured a mobile home and were using it as a base outside the plant gate. The Press Journalists were queueing up in search of interviews and some members of the strike committee were practically in a permanent press conference session.

And so it was that at 7 o'clock in the cold grey of an October morning (10 October to be exact) eleven Transport Union Officials were seen hovering in the vicinity of the plant gates.

They had braved the elements "as a gesture of solidarity" with 60 production workers who were about to embark on a difficult mission.

These workers had responded to an ITGWU call to get production going at the plant again an operation usually requiring the co-operation of many more. The mission was to prove impossible.

In the preceding week the ITGWU had given its Ferenka section the status of Branch. (Up to this, the Ferenka section of the ITGWU was in the Limerick No. 2 Branch).

Tom O'Dwyer, a former chairman of the union at Ferenka was brought back from his full-time union job in Carlow to take charge of the new Ferenka Branch. In his first public statement in his new position he claimed that workers were being intimidated by the picket. No evidence of this was ever produced and even the Limerick Leader report on 10 October states "There were no incidents of note this morning and everything went off peacefully as the men on picket duty did not interfere with those who went to work." The next day, 11 October, the ITGWU called a general meeting of all 900 production workers for Connolly Hall in Limerick. Estimates of the number that attended vary from 40 to 90 (the latter being the claim of the Transport Union) A statement was issued claiming that the meeting had voted unahnimousiy to return to work. However, in the days which followed, the number going into work never surpassed 65 and actually began to decrease, even though large numbers of ITGWU officials continued to appear at the factory gates each morning.

PROTECTIVE NOTICE

It was now just two weeks since the suspension of the strike leaders. At a meeting of the Limerick Trades Council delegates from the ITGWU put forward a motion "That the counctlL views with serious concern the present dispute which has eLosed the Ferenka plant, putting over 900 men out of work. Therefore the counci£ calls on ak the workers to resume work dmmediately so that those matters at present in dispute may be processed through the agreed procedures. The ITGWU is prepared to meet the executive committee of the Limerick Council of Trade Unions to discuss ways of S0kving this problem.”

They also wanted the MPGWU to be censured for “attempting to take over" the members of the ITGWU at Ferenka. After a long and heated debate, and in spite of the high proportion of ITGWU delegates, the Council voted by a small majority to reject the motion in favour of a proposal drawn up by its Executive Committee which suggested that a committee be elected from among all Ferenka production workers.

This committee would then meet with the Trades Council to discuss the problem of industrial relations in the plant. The workers were to return to work in the meantime.

John Browne, a Branch Secretary of the Marine Port said that this proposal appealed to him because a ballot would remove any suggestions that the workers were being forced to join the MPGWU.

Although the ITGWU considered this proposal over a number of days they failed to react positively £0 it. While these attempts to settle the dispute were

being made the company issued protective notice to the whole Ferenka workforce. It should be noted here that records show that the company had made little effort to bring about a return to work. They had remained conspicuously silent and out of reach over the preceding weeks .

All the statements one has come to expect from a company involved in a strike - Threat of close down, union's fault, irresponsible militants, etc. - were being made by Transport Union Officials. The company failed to react to the Limerick Trades Council's proposals before it issued the protective notice and continued to ignore the Marine Port's call for a meeting.

They also had failed to respond to suggestions that they raise the "indefinate suspension" of Philip Byrnes, an act which would have resulted in an instant return to work by all concerned.

MARCH

19 October saw 600 Ferenka production workers back at the Savoy at a meeting called by the MPGWU. They were greeted with the news that they would receive £7 per week strike pay for the duration of the dispute. Up to that time they had been surviving on home assistance and money raised in collections made outside workplace in Limerick and Shannon.

Directly after. this meeting the 600 workers held a march through the streets of Limerick.

The only other time Ferenka workers had done this was on the occasion of the Herrema kidnapping. Then, some of them had carried placards reading "Give us back our Boss" and "Dr. Herrema is our fellow worker". Now the placards read "No more cheap labour at Ferenka", "No more sweetheart deals", etc.

They marched behind a banner which said

"“MPGWU. FERENKA SECTION, 840 MEMBERS."

It was this march which finally cleared up the question of which union the workers wanted to belong to. It also effectively dispelled the claims of intimidation which were being made against the strikers. It is obviously quite difficult to intimidate 600 people into marching through the city of Limerick.

THE POLITICIANS MOVE IN

By this time one would have expected some local Councillor or T.D, to "intervene" and make a name for him/herself. But for most, the Ferenka case was too hot to handle. With so many votes involved a mistake could wreck a political career, Of course, on the other hand, the right move could do wonders for a politician's prospects. And eventually this did become toc great a temptation for one of our public representatives. On 24 October, one of the workers, a Paddy Tobin issued a statement claiming that he, and a group of striking workers, were being prevented from seeking the intervention of Mick Lipper, T.D.

in the dispute. The idea was that Lipper would "call on management to remove the suspensions and let the men return to work." The men were then to agree to a "cooling off period" of three months during which they would discuss and consider the whole situation. No mention was made of the fact that Lipper is a member of the

ITGWU.

Pointing out that the Strike Committee was the only body having the power to issue statements on behaif of tne workers, the Marine Pert withheld Tobin's strike pay and nothing more was heard of the incident or of that "group of workers." Whether Lipper contrived the incident or just allowed himself to be used by glory hunters is irrelevant. The resuit was the same.

His role at this point of the dispute must be judged by his failure to offer his services and support to the Strike Committee - the real representatives of the workers. To do otherwise, as he did, was to ignore the democratic norms of the Trade Union Movement and instead seek personal political advancement.

The next politician into the breach was Gene Fitzgerald, Minister for Labour. He suggested the setting up cf a 3 member Tribunal to

investigate the causes of the discontent among Ferenka employees. While this was going on all trade union activity was to cease in the plant for six months. As might be expected, the Ferenka management went hook, line and sinker for these proposals. But so did the Marine Port, (with some reservations.) However, these reservations seemed to concern only the point dealing with Philip Byrnes' suspension rather than with any concern over blatant State intervention in the internal life of the Trade Union Movement. The ITGWU, to its everlasting credit, rejected the proposals out of hand cn the grcunds that accepting them would have "serious implications for the whole Trade Union Movement".

On 2&8 October amended proposals from the Minister were published. The idea of a Tribunal was dropped in favour of the Labour Court, but the restrictions on union activity in the plant still seemed tc be implied. These new proposals were shot down by the MPGWU as they called for "The Labour Court to investigate the circumstances relating to the indefinate suspension of Mr. Phil Byrnes and make a recommendaticn." The Ferenka workers had been on strike for over a month against precisely such an event. The dispute at this time was tending to centre around the inter-union difficulties and this was obviously suiting the company. The MPGWU had done little to correct this drift. However, on 1 November, Frank Ellis, president of the Marine Port spelt out the issues involved.

He said that the basis for a return to work was for the company to take back Philip Byrnes and that if the factory closed. the responsibility would lie solely with the company.

LAY OFF

For the Ferenka workers November 1977 began with the ending of the company's protective notice.

The few production workers who had been passing the pickets were now "Susrended indefinately", so to speak. Up to now, the rumours that the company would close were generally discounted as scare tactics on the part of the company or on the part of the ITGWU in their bid te win back members. Now, however, just about everyone was prophesising the departure of AKZO and AKZO "trouble shooter" J.K. van Wijngaarden, newly arrived at the plant, was only too happy to give the rumours substance.

"The outside world is very slowly closing around our neck. It's like a nightmare", he declared.

It was at this stage also that Van Wijngaarden revealed that he had been sent to the Ferenka plant shorcly before the strike for the purpose of "bringing stability to the Limerick plant".

The lay-offs and the rumours of closure brought a meeting between the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, Mr. O'Malley and two members of the ENKA Board. As is usual with such meetings the discussions were secret, with the workers, whose jobs were at stake, apparently nct having any right to know how their future was being negotiated. It was reported that the Limerick based Minister stressed the responsibility Ferenka had to Ireland since upwards of £19 million had been invested or ear marked by the I.D.A., for the Annacotty plant. This would seem to suggest that the ENKA/AKZO people had come on strong at the meeting with the threat of closure.

Many are of the opinion that the company had told O'Malley that they would pull out if he didn't introduce legislation to restrict Trade Union activity. If they did, O'Malley neglected to warn the workers.

THE CLERGY MOVE IN

On Sunday, 6 November, the Mass goers in several Limerick churches were given strict instructions to seek out Ferenka workers and explain to them how stupidly they were behaving. In what was obviously a co-ordinated intervention, the priests also called for support for the women's march on the following Tuesday.

The women's march referred to had been oarcsnised and planned in the »vevious couple - Seeecey The idea had come from a Shiela MucTa#zcns ina letter to the Limevick Leader whi eres, oF "Could the wives of the Ferenke match through Limertck to get tner menfolrk asaer to work." One of the organisers of the méren “re. ce.

in the press as saying "We want to show our husbands 2460 2k wo them back at wow2. We alse want <5 5.

the company and -4hers our grave cc at the situation." However, a Mrs. Ann Kavanagh, wiic quickly came to the fore as the main spokesperson for the women, denied that the march was purely directed at getting the men back to work. She said that "they just wanted to highlight the urgency of the situation,” Despite these disclaimers, the march could only be seen as putting pressure on the workers (exclusively) to give in, Not once did the organisers put forward the simple demand on the company which would have secured an immediate return to work - reinstate all the Ferenka Shop Stewards. After all this advance publicity the march itself was an anti-climax. About 120 women, most of them representing "concerned organisations" took part.

It was generally accepted that only about 25 wives of Ferenka workers were involved and most of those were married to staff rather than production workers. However the whole incident does show the potential which exists for employers to use women (isolated in the home with all the pressures that it brings i.e. it is women who have ta make the strike pay stretch to feed the family) as strike breakers. It also shows why the Labour Movement, even fer its own benefit, must take us the question of women's oppression outside of the workplace. One of the "concerned organisations" involved in the march was the Southill Community Council.

In a press statement, it claimed that 290 Ferenka employees lived in Southill. Among other things they warned about the danger to children "who saw the adult population of the region acting in such an irresponsible way" and asked “how could those children be expected to be responsible citizens." Both those assertions were subsequently questioned.

Firstly, the strike committee were able to point out that no more than 25 Ferenka production workers lived in Southill. (The Strike Committee had possession of a list of the names and addresses ef all production workers and this was doubly checked by the compilers of this pamphlet.)

The claim by the Community Council that 12 times more Ferenka workers Jived in Souvthili than actually did, would seem to give substance to Philip Byrnes' charge, at the time, that individuals in the Council, and specifically Tommy Allen, were using the situation for personal publicity. This was strongly denied by the individuals concerned, but either way, the Council never defended the Southill workers they claimed to represent by calling for the reinstatement of their Shop Stewards (one cf whom was from the area) but, rather, took a "neutral" stance which, in practice, only put pressure on the workers to give in. Secondly, a group of the "real wives" of Ferenka production workers living in Southill issued the following statement "We, the wives of the Ferenka workers Living in Southill, wish to refute any suggestion that we ane dn favour of our husbands returning te werk at any cost. "AS women, 44 48 we who feel the worst egfects of Low wages and anti-social shift systems.

Tt 44 we who have to make the weekéy wage stretch the full seven days. "We do not consider fighting against bad wages, bad working conditions and the victimisation of andividual workers to be acting Annesponsdibly bekore the eyes of our children,

as has been suggested by the Southike Community Councal. "We have no intention of allowing ourselves to be used by anyone to put pressure on cur husbands to end the strike before it is settled to the satisfaction of the workers, and we demand the recnstatement, by the company, of alk the workers." - Mas. J. Connery, Mas. E. O'Donneke, Mrs. M, Meehan, Maureen 0 Baine, Esther Downey, Pauline Ranson, Verna McRedmond, Mary O'Connor, Mary FitzGerald, Ann Cronin, Geraldine Cleary. It may be hard to believe it in this day and age, but the clergy in Southill sent for one of the women who put her name to this statement and wanted to know who made her sign it. When she replied that she had done so of her own free wiil and would do so again if she wished they sent for her husband to “have a talk with him."

The events of that weekend were only the beginning of the intervention of the clergy in the dispute. Later, the big guns of the clergy were to come into action.

SUPPORT GROUP

The early weeks of November saw the Limerick Trades Council continue its efforts to find a solution to the situation. It was also at this time that attempts to set up a Strike Support Group were made. A number of meetings were held at the new MPGWU Head Cuarters in Roches Street, Limerick and were attended by Trade Union activists from the National Busmen's Union, the ITGWU, A.S.T.M.S., L.G.P.S.U., I.P.0O.E.U., T.U.I. and local MPGWU members, The Strike Committee used these meetings mainly to explain their side of the story and those present were to take this back to their place of work and spread it around. Supporters of the Bottom Dog, who attended these meetings, consistently argued for the formation of a properly organised strike support group which would have the authority to build support for the Ferenka workers (circulate information, raise financial support, campaign for workstoppages in support of the strike etc.)

The Strike Committee were reluctant, however, to allow this to develop. They still believed they could win on their own without “putting others workers to trouble." This typified the general approach of the Strike Committee. They continually tended to hold off on initiatives of their own in the hope that the various initiatives from outside would lead to a settlement. They were clearly under pressure from the Marine Port leadership to keep a low profile so as not to "jeopardise" the numerous settlement attempts.

But as each week passed and as each attempt at settlement failed it became more difficult for the Strike Committee to make independent moves.

MPGWU IGNORED

In the middle of November a series of meetings were held in Dublin between representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the ITGWU, Ferenka management and the F.U.E. As a result, the I.C.T.U. and the F.U.E. issued a six point settlement plan o THERE SHALL bea full resumption of work at normal starting time on Monday next, November 21 commencing with the 8.00 a.m.

Shift and day workers; o ALL EMPLOYEES, inckuding the seven suspended workers, Should report for work without prejudice to the Labour Court making a recommendation cn the disecplanary dbbue Neferned to it on Sth October, 1977; o THAT THE teams and conditions of empLoyment as applied before the stoppage shall operate on a resumption of work; o THAT ANY parobhLems anising after a resumption of work should be deakt with in accordance with the existing agreed procedures; o NOTHING IN this recommendation shall preckude the Company on the unien having discussions with any other party provided no arrangements

ane made which wikt prejudice the terms and vakidity of the Company/Union agreement, and o ANY PROBLEMS andsing from such discussions shall be referred to the EmpLoyer-Labour Conference for consideration and recommendation.

However, the MPGWU were not consulted on these proposals and demanded a meeting with management before they could seriously consider the proposals. A meeting was consequently held in Roscrea, Co. Tipperary between Ferenka Management and Marine Port Officials.

The outcome of this meeting and the settlement proposals were considered by a meeting of Marine Port members at the Savoy on Saturday, 18 November.

Both the Marine Port Executive and the Strike Committee advised the workers to reject the proposals which were described as ridiculous as they tended tc practically ignore the existence of the MPGWU. The meeting voted by 441 to 64 to reject the settlement plans and the message to come from the gathering was that the men were now members of the Marine Port and would only go back to work as members of the Marine Port.

It now seems clear that the. management and the F.U.E. put forward these proposals knowing that the MPGWU would have to reject them and wouid therefore allow the situation to appear to the public as a purely inter-union dispute beyond their control. The ITGWU leaders went aicng with this charade even though they must have known in their hearts that the strikers would not go back under "the same conditions" which included being members of the ITGWU.

BACK TO WORK

It was now clear to most people that matters were completely out of the Ferenka Management's hands and that ENKA, the parent subsidiary, was now dealing directly with the dispute.

It had been announced that the Boards of ENKA and AKZO were meeting to decide the fate of the Annacotty plant. It was in this atmosphere of impending doom that another mass meeting of Marine Port members was held in the Savoy on 26 November to reconsider the ICTU/FUE settlement proposals.

The Executive of the MPGWU had received clarification on the proposals at meetings they had with Harold O'Sullivan, representative of the ICTU and were now recommending acceptance to the workers. They claimed that there were two significant changes from the original proposals as they had understood them.

(1) Once work was resumed the Marine Port would be able to meet with the company to discuss recognition and procedures.

(2) Any matters arising out of the problem of union recognition was to be dealt with by Harold O'Sullivan of the I.C.T.U.

rather than by the Employer-Labour.

Conference as seemed to be suggested originally. (The MPGWU does not participate in the Employer-Labour Conference).

When a vote was taken on the "clarified" preposals 418 of these present voted in favour of acceptance and a return to work while 13 voted to continue the strike.

How much this vote was influenced by the continuous stream of warnings of imminent closure rather than by any genuine improvement in the proposals is not clear. But the size of the majority in favour of a return to work would seem to indicate a real belief on the part of the workers that they had won their case and were going back on their own terms.

CLOSURE

The strike which had lasted two months was over.

All the workers were back in the plant.

Everyone who thought they were anyone, were issuing statements of "delight", "relief", "pleasure", etc. But in the back of everyone's mind was the feeling that things were not

quite right. No attempt was made to resume production in the factory and the management said they were “waiting for word from Holland". That afternoon, the word came. The message was passed through the silent factory that the workers were to go home and tune in to the 6.15 news on TV.

This was how the multi-national, AKZO, told 1,400 workers from the North Munster area that they no longer had the right to work. The date was 28 November, 1977 and the local reaction to the announcement was summed up by tne headline in the Limerick Leader on the following day - "Limerick Shocked and Stunned at Ferenka Closure". It might be worth recording here what some of our public representatives had to say about the closure. At a City Councii meeting on the evening of Ferenka's departure, Limerick's Councillors gave forth. Councillor Paddy Kiely called on the workers of Ireland to "pull up their sccks" to ensure that foreign investment was not frightened out of the country.

"We will have to give them fair play and full co-operation to make sure that they will stay in the country,” he advised.

Councillor Tony Bromell insisted that it was about time that the “ordinary workers" stood up and were counted and not allow themselves to be dictated to by small groups. Alderman Pat Kennedy agreed whole-heartedly witn those sentiments.

Councillor Ciem Casey's main concern "as a business man himself" was for the effect on the commercial business of the city. However, Councillor Jack Bourke was the hero of the day. He said that, although it would probably cost him votes in the next local election, he would have to lay the blame for the closure at the door of the unions.

OCCUPATION

Following the announcement on TV of the closure, members of the Shop Stewards Committee and rank li and file members of the Marine Port began to gather at the Roches Street Head Quarters.

Some members of the support group (such as it was) were also there. The generel feeling of all those present was that something would have to be done right away. The workers felt that they had been forced to iive on a Inteagre income for two months over an incident which the company had admitted, for all practical purposes, was its fault. They had gone back tc work as soon aS 4 set ef proposals taking their wishes into account, had peen drawn up. And now AKZO said they were all out of work.

In the discussion which took place about how to fight the closure there was no tendency to stand back and hope the politicians or clergy would solve the problem. Everyone present felt ‘clearly that they would nave to act immediately if there was to be any fight for the jobs.

With the workforce now scattered over five counties, any fight to keep the factory open would need a central focus - something which would keep the workforce together and which support for the struggle could be built around. Occupation of the plant seemed the only logical thing. : A few people expressed fears that the police would physically eject any workers who tried to sit-in but it was generally felt that it would be too embarrassing for the authorities to attack workers who were clearly fighting for their jobs. The possibility of this happening was not, however, ruled out, especially if the occupation was weak and isolated. It was agreed that the sit-in would commence at 2.00 a.m.

that night and John Devine, Vice Chairman of the Shop Stewards Committee, was elected spokesperson for the Occupation Committee.

It was now almost mid-night and plans for the occupation were drawn up. Everyone was given some task or other. Some were to contact other ‘workers who could be counted on to take part in the initial entry. Some were given the task of getting provisions for an extended stay in the plant. Others were detailed to secure sleeping bags and blankets while others had the job of arranging transport to Annacotty.

Everything went smoothly and at 2 o'clock that night the outside perimeter fence at the plant was cut and about 20 workers occupied "MAHOGANY ROW", the Board Room area of the plant.

THE BISHOP’S KNIGHTS

The original idea of occupying the plant came from Harold O'Suilivan cf the I.C.T.U. However, his advice to the workers to take over the factory seems to have been motivated more by a feeling of personal insult (he had, in good faith, negotiated a return to work a few days earlier) rather than by a firm conviction of the benefits of this strategy. A couple of days later he called on the workers to leave the plant! But the cpposition of Harold O'Sullivan was the least the occupying workers had to contend with. Although cccupations of workplaces are a most unusual and radical step in Ireland, the sit-in was practically ignored for the first couple of days. The media hae a big part in playing it down in favour of statements by the Bishop of Limerick and representatives of "badly effected service industries".

However, the occupation, which had shortly grown to involve over 40 workers, could not be ignored for long, but when attention was finally turned in its direction it was, for the most part, aimed at bringing it to a speedy end. No effort was spared to convince the workers that their best interests would be served by allowing their fate to be decided by "intermediaries", The chief "intermediary" was to be Dr. Newman, Catholic Bishop of Limerick. On 30 November, the day after the sit-in began, he issued a statement in which, among other things, he volunteered to tackle the multi-national in its own den - the Nederlands. There was no shortage of valets to make straight his path by removing his greatest obstacle the occupation. First into the breach was the Vice-President of Limerick Trades Council, Ger South.

"They have made their point - and well. To carry on with the sit-in now might divert the Main issue and I advise them to leave the premises," he told the Press, Next came Vincent Feeney, President of the Chamber of Commerce. "Instead of resolving the trouble, those who are conducting the sit-in, even with the best of intentions, will give the impression to outsiders that they are continuing the dispute." The Limerick Leader stepped up next to do its bit "A high-ranking source close to international government and business cincles, has called urgently for an immediate end to the sit-in at Ferenka. 14 it does not end - and the

Warning 4&8 put with great sincerity - there watt be no hope of re-opening the plant and winning back 1,400 jobs. Whatever chance “here 48 Of getting someone to take over the factory, there 48 no chance at ak while Lhene 48 @ taint of a Labour dispute according Zo the warning. The sit-in £8 now regarded as "the only 454ue", important moves are being made, at the highest and mest influential circles, to save the vos. And atready there is a feeling that there could be a skim chance ....."

(Limerick Leader 3 November) This piece appeared under banner front page headlines - 'NO CHANCE IF SIT-IN GOES ON', The source was never named, and no reason was given for not doing so. The public (and the workers in occupation) were expected to take the Leaders word for this bland statement.

On top of all this the Marine Port leaders seemed not to be interested in supporting, let along building, the occupation, They, along with the ITGWU were busy meeting with the Bishop and placed more faith in the intervention of the clergy than in the power and independent action of their members.

SOLIDARITY

While all this was happening, an alternative strategy was being promoted by Bottom Dog supporters who argued that the occupation committee call a mass meeting of all Ferenka workers to take place in the plant. This meeting would discuss ways of building support of the occupations, including involvement cf many more of the workers in the sit-in itself.

It was also proposed that this meeting demand that both unions (MPGWU and ITGWU) should use their resources to contact workers and unions in other parts of the AKZO-ENKA Multi-nationali end try to win their support for a fight to force the company to keep Ferenka open, In 1972 this strategy had been used with total success by workers in the AKZO factories in Holland, Belgium and West Germany.

"Internationak trade unionism has won a notable victory in its fight to stop Akzo, the Dutch chemicals and fibres giants, dismissing over 5,000 workers in three countries, In a surprise announcement the company said it was withdrawing its controversial "restructuring" plan because of the opposition encountered.

Akzo'S’ retreat, which has been warmly welcomed by the unions involved, follows a Series of gruelling talks. The government, an the Snape of the ministers of economic and social affains, spoke separately with the Akzo board and union representatives.

The vanrdous unions have bitterly fought the company's’ plans Since they were giast announced Last May, Because of over-capacity 4n.the synthetic fibres industry, Akzo decided to chose five pkants - two each in Holland and West Germany and one in Belgium belonging to its affiliate Enka Glanzstogs.

The ckLosures invokved the dismissal of more than 5,000 workers. The unions halted the implementation of the closures by demanding an independent inquiry which sharply cnritised the company for dgnoring the sociak implications of its dntended moves. Union resistance intensified to the point where the plant at Breda, in the south cf Holland, was occupied by the workers at the beginning of this week, This was foLLowed by a sit-in at the Wuppertal-Barmen plant in West Germany."

(Irish Press 22 September '72) Now, at Annacotty, in 1977 while practically everyone else was placing their faith in the politicians and the clergy, efforts were being made to put this strategy into operation, However, the success of these efforts depended

on the resources of the Trade Union Movement being used to promote them and as we said these were not forthcoming : Through a rank and file group of Trade Unionists - the Belfast Workers Council - with whom the Bottom Dog had been in touch, contact was made with British ENKALON, an Enka subsidiary based outside Belfast. Arrangements were made for members of the Ferenka occupation committee to travel North for a meeting with them to discuss possible forms of support by the Northern Workers. However, for reasons which can best be put down to the effects of the British imposed border, the meeting did not take place. The exact details of the breakdown have not yet become clear. This setback did not prevent further similar efforts being made. At the beginning of the sit-in the Bottom Dog succeeded in making contact with some people in the Nederlands the Ireland Committee - a group which explains and supports the struggle of the Nationalist minority in the North. They offered to help in any way they could. The Ferenka occupation committee were informed of this offer and together with members of the Support Group they drew up the following leaflet and asked that it be distributed to AKZO Workers in the Nederlands Dean fellow trade unionists, At the moment this 4&5 the only means by which we can reach you to explain our Side of the stony neganding the closure of the factory in Ireland and our Aeasons for occupying it. You may have been told by the company that the Inish workers and unions are responsible for the closure of Ferenka. We completely reject this charge.

“re fokLowing are the facts:- Fenenka opened 5 years ago and employed ',400 workers. - The company received £12m “n grants. - Export profits were to be Lax free pt 15 years. - The company decided which union we should join.

We had no choice in the matter. - Pay and working conditions were very bad. The Shift system allowed only 12 weekends in the year off and a day shift worker with 2 children took home only £42 per week.

- The extent of the bad working conditions and bad industrial relations can be gauged from the fact that over 2,500 workers have Left the factory in the past 5 years, 10 weeks ago 90% of the production workers decided that they had Lost alk confidence in the ability of the union to improve our conditions. We decided to join another union, the MPGWU, a union of our own choice.

The company rejected our right to do this and Left us no option but to take strike action.

When, after & weeks, they finally seemed to have conceded this right we returned to work only to be sent home and told .to watch the News on TV.

This 4&8 how we Learned of the closure. It is now clear that the company used the excuse of the strike to close. As workers in the same Multi-national we appeal for your hekp in forcing Akzo/Enka to keep the factory open. Any pressure you could put on the company would be much appreciated.

=

We feek confident that national boundries and distance wiklk pacve to be no obstacke and that the Links and contacts we wilh forge now will be ongoing and of benefit to alk Akzo workers in the future. An injury to one 46 an dnjury to ake, P. Byrnes, J. Devine (f02 the committee} What occurred after this is detailed in the following letter received by the Bottom Dog from the Ireland Committee Ineland Committee Postbus I1.618 -Amsterdam Dear Editor, Very many thanks for your quick sending of the back issues of the B.D. which gave us good ideas about Ferxenka's past. We duplicated the statement sent to us by the occupation committee and Leafleted the factories at Katgen on Dec. 6th, Breda on Dec. 9th and Arnhem on Dec, 13th. We akso ent the statement to the main papers, TV ete (clippings enclosed).

We know one of the workers in Akzo, Amsterdam and he said that the Leaflet was well read and discussed. At finst, the Dutch union seemed to be reacting positivery to the contents of the Leaflet but Last .

weekend we had an ITGWU delegation over here.

Now the Dutch union 45 very angry about our activities and say it 44 alk Lies and they tekl thein rank and file this as well.

They claim that a few hundred workers Lest the MPGWU again Last week. We don't believe this but the situation is very congused for us now, You may understand that it 46 difficult to get support here for the rerenka worrers when the ITGWU sister union hene tell their members the ITGWU Lies.

We enclose the front page cf one of the Dutch newspapers which shows the Large coverage given to the Ferenka workers statement. Please show this to the workers and also give them the resokution 04 solidarity signed by Pacletanies Links, the Independent Union Novement, the Federation cf Free Sociakists, the Radicad Catholic Youth vicvement and the Ireland Commitiee. PLease Let us know more about the current situation, Yours sincerely, Els. Perhaps the Dutch workers would have taken some sort of action in support of the Verenka occupation. Perhaps they woulcu't have.

Only the sending of a delegation from the occupying workers to meet the factory floor representatives of the Dutch workers would have shown just how much support could be obtained. But the faint spark of solidarity which was *pparent at first was quickly quenched by th. lies which, if not deliberately circulated by vse ITGWU leaders, were not corrected by them. And why should they correct them?

The confusion fitted their strategy very well.

Here in Ireland we were told that a delegation from the ITGWU was meeting a Dutch union with a view to arranging a meeting with the parent company - Akzo. In their pleadings with the company to come back it would have been useful if they could claim to be back ‘policing’ the workers as in the good old days.

What more could any company want.

It is ironic that the Transport Union, which depended so much on the support of foreign workers for its very survival in the 1913 Dublin Lockout should now see no need for such support. Perhaps it gives a good indication of just how far (despite claims to the contrary) the Irish Labour Movement has moved away from the ideas and practices of

James Connolly and Jim Larkin.

MASS: MEETING

On 2 December, one week after the sit-in began, ali Ferenka workers were called to a meeting in the plant. The clerical union, T.A.S.S. was, along with the Marine Port, involved in organising this meeting. About a thousand workers gathered in the Annacotty plant under the banner - UNITED WORKERS Of FERENKA - and they were addressed by a number of speakers from the various parties. A rep from the "Group of 40" (mainly middle manacement) claimed they had carried out an investigation which proved the plant was a “going concern".

Others expressed the belief that all was not lost. However it was Ger South of the Limerick Trades Ccuncil who summed up the whole purpose of the meeting when he told the gathering that the only hope of saving the jobs lay in the outcome of a prcposed meeting between Bishop Newman and the Mr. Lynch and that the best thing the workers could do was to show that they were united behind the cleric.

It was indeed .a pathetic sight to see a representative of the Trades Council, which had taken such a principled stand and done such trojan work during the early part of the dispute, now promote the idea that the Catholic Bishop of Limerick had more power and influence than the Irish Trade Movement and that the workers should plead rather than fight for their jobs.

Any opposition to this strategy was stifled at that meeting by a proposal, supported by the platform that no discussion take place. Nothing was to be said that might suggest any disunity among the workers.

Anyone who might have had doubts about the wisdom of depending on divine intervention to save the jobs would have found it difficult to speak out in the artificially contrived atmosphere (of hope in the Bishop's intervention) which held sway at the meeting.

None did. One of the better moments of the meeting happened when a Dutch trade unionist addressed the workers. He began by apologising for his inability to communicate with them in their own language - Gaelic, and for this gesture of recognition to Ireland's National identity he received rousing applause.

He went on to offer Dutch Trade Unicn support for any efforts to save the jobs but this offer could not be taken up in any real way. What could Dutch trade unionists possibly do to back up a Bishop's intervention?!ii: As the Ferenka workers emerged from the meeting into the rain and cold of that December night their faces didn't exactly illuminate the darkness. Rather dispondency was the order of the day. Few really believed that the Bishop and the politicians would save the jobs.

Many felt frustrated at the prospect of having no control over their fate. Some knew that the struggle was over and that the union bureaucrats, the politicians and the clergy were now in control of the situation. The possibility of a fight against the closure based on the local, national and international strength of the Trade Union Movement was gone and with it any real chance of saving the jobs.

That night also, the Marine Port leaders instructed the workers who were sitting in to leave the plant. The occupation was over.

PART I]

Overshadowing the entire Ferenka debacle, and the element in it which has lived longest in its wake, is the Inter Union dispute between the I.T.G.W.U. and the M.P.G.W.U. This was the hook on which the politicians, management and indeed many trade unionists saw fit to hang the whole responsibility for the closedown of the factory. What caused this dispute?

What were the real issues involved in it?

What lessons, if any, can the Trade Union Movement learn from it for the future?

Hereunder we will examine these questions and attempt to find some answers.

In order create a backdrop to this problem it is necessary to deal briefly with the "Closed Shop Agreement". The "closed shop" is almost as old as the Trade Union Movement, itself.

In the early days of Labour Organisation it was not, as it is often looked on now, a tactical question. It was not something to be debated and discussed dispassionately.

It was often a matter of life and death, of full or empty stomachs, a question of whether one worked or whether one starved. When the working class was fighting for the right to organise in this country in the early twentieth century the employers, when they were not using less savoury methods, tried all in their power to hire unorganised workers as opposed to trade union members, as a way of splitting the workforce. The young trade union movement fought back anywhere their strength allowed, forcing the employer to hire only trade union labour. This was a huge, important victory for the working class. There can be no question but that this has been a necessary and effective weapon in strengthening the movement and without it we would not be where we are today.

As time advanced, and more and more unions came on the scene the closed shop came to mean a lot more. The demand now being raised was that only members of A PARTICULAR unicn would be employed where that union was organised. A policy long adopted by the craft unions, was now being extended to more general workers unions. There is much debate within the T.U. Movement today on this policy so we do not intend to go into the rights and wrongs of it here - though at a later stage in this section we will make a couple of suggestions on how it could be tackled.

We can see then that the closed shop arrangement is not a new one - what does seem to be a new departure is the emergence of Pre-Entry closed shops. This is a system where a particular union gets together with the management of the "shop" or place of business before it opens or any workers are hired and draws up an agreeirent about conditions, pay etc. in that "shop", part of which states that a condition of employment will be membership of that union.

Many unions operate this system, its practice is not confined to any particular union.

The justification for this, sometimes offered by supporters of it, is that it ensures trade union membership and therefore protection from day one. This may well be so but it also takes control totally out of the hands of the worker. The reason why people join a trade union is to win some control over their conditions of employment, their working conditions, their pay etc. They group together so that they can have their say about what they want. Regardless of how good or bad the clauses in pre-entry agreement might be, they do not give the workers who will work there any input, the agreement is signed on their behalf without them having as much as seen it. So one might ask, how can they be bound by it? This practice is contrary to the aims of the trade union movement at the very lowest level. This was the type of closed: shop agreement which Operated in Ferenka. Production workers, as a condition of employment, had to be members of the ITGWU. This condition applied only to production workers, crafts men remained in their Own union and office staff later joined TASS.

The Ferenka workforce was mainly made up of people from a rural background. A great many of the

production workers were small farmers who had insufficient income from the land to make a living. Many more were men who had perhaps worked for farmers previously and now saw a2 chance of earning what seemed like enormous sums of money in relation to what they got as farm labourers. Urban workers with a tradition of industrial work behind them were in a minority.

Management tactics at the plant were to be uncompromising in the face of any opposition to their plans. This brief outline could be applied to dozens of plants here and in other countries. The conditions negotiated initially by ITGWU were far from ideal but yet presumably were better than if no union represented the employees.

The fact that the members had criticisms of their union and were dissatisfied with their conditions is surely not unique. Why then was the case of Ferenka so bitter and so different?

To understand this we need to examine: (a) Why the Ferenka workers were so unhappy with their union as to decide to transfer to another union and (b) Why, when they did so decide, were there so many obstacles in their way.

To highlight the many and varied accusations of lack of service, justified and unjustified made by the Ferenka workers in relation to the ITGWU, would take more space than this entire pamphlet allows. To dwell on them at this stage would be a futile exercise. However, some explanation must be given to explain 840 defections from the union. The criticism underlying all others seems to be that the union tended to keep its members on a leash. The union official, Vincent Moran, seemed to see his job as that of a conciliator between the management and workers, rather than as a paid champion of the workers rights. Time and time again cver the seven year pericd of Ferenka's sojourn in Ireland the workers were prepared to fight on such issues as wages conditions etc. but time and again they failed to receive the full backing of the union to whom they had the privilege of paying approx. £20,000 per year.

Consider that over the seven years, there occurred 15 strikes at the plant, not one of them officially fought hy the union, although most were backed by the vast. majority of the production workers. Considering this unhappy record and also considering the fact that the company had confirmed a 500 man turnover in workers each year (the basic production group being 900-1,000) in a period of high unemployment one can only come to the conclusion that there were serious problems in working conditions and personnel relations. The rapidity of turnover, in particular would seem to indicate that no hard core group of militants operated in the plant over the seven years. . The relatively short employment records of many of those who were shop stewards at the time of the dispute also upnolds this supposition, Overall, events indicate that there was little real communication between the ITGWU officials and their union members. As far back as six years before the 1977 dispute members were complaining that the official usually consulted with management when a problem arose before he met with the workers he was supposed to represent. ITGWU members at Ferenka then, had reason to be dissatisfied with their unions representation.

But so do ITGWU members elsewhere and members of most other unions in regard to their own.

What were the alternative means of coming to grips with this situation, which were open to them, rather than transferring to another union?

That depends on how one sees the instituticn of the Trade Union. The trade union is often Presented to the public (at school, in the newspapers, at work) as similar to a company Or a mafia type organisation. A ready-made entity with indigenous rules, regulations, custom and practice which just do not change.

It is something one joins because it is 8 big brother to protect, because everyone else is in it or because you won't get the

job if you don't. Once in, you pay your dues, occasionally complain to the leaders of work problems and listen out for the next rise in wages. If this is the way one sees the union then if you don't like the music then you leave the band - if you can.

On the other hand, if you see a trade union as the property of the members then another course is open to you. The majority of unions are democratic on paper. Rules which exist can be changed at National Conferences etc. It is when the functionaries of the union begin to get out of the control of the members and operate independently of them that democracy buries its head.

This is a fact of life of every union and the only way to tackle it is by fighting within the union to make it a weapon which the members can use instead of having the tail wag the dog. This is no easy task and the bigger the union the harder the job but ultimately it is the only alternative to a constant itinerary of going from one union to another in search of an elusive dream of members control and democracy. A prerequisite of such a struggle for control of their union, is a willingness on the members part to organise rank and file solidarity in various plants in the same union with regular meetings every member can attend. The most important demand is for control over the people they pay to represent them. To be fair to the Ferenka workers they made numerous attempts to have their dissatisfaction with the union representation at local level solved within the union. They did take their complaints to the top but were given no satisfaction. Perhaps on foot of this they should have taken their grievances to the ICTU disputes machinery, which would surely have been forced to see their point and recommend to the ITGWU to attend to them.

However, ITGWU presence in Congress, with its large representation, would have continued to place obstacles in the way of the Ferenka workers, who were so demoralised at this stage, that a further frustrating and long struggle was out of the question. Rule 47 (D) of Congress which demands practically 100% agreement from a sector of workers before it can transfer from one union to another, as well as the agreement from the union which holds the members (in this case the Transport Union), was seen by the production workers as an impossible obstacle, either to overcome or circumvent, A previous approach along tnese lines had been made to the ATGWU (an I.C.T.U. union) but feil through because of the complexities of Rule 47(D).

So, the production workers opted for a Non-Ccngress union - the Marine Port and General Workers "Jnion.

It was not the first time that workers in the Limerick area transferred to this union. A section of freight workers in C.I.E., some years previously had taken a similar course, again because of dissatisfaction with union representation.

To summarise this section and draw conclusions from lessons to be learnt is important. The Ferenka "inter-union dispute" was a direct result of a union paid representation being more concerned with pleasing management, having a "good industrial relations record” or being a "shinning example” to the economic and political establishment of how a trade union should behave! One cannot pursue this course and truly represent one's members at the same time.

For some time now, there has been a lot of talk about “trade union unity" and "sectoral interests".

The only “unity" which should concern the Trade Union Movement is one of a strong and united working class and the only sectoral interests which shouid concern us is that of the sector which the movement represents, those who are reduced to selling their labour, in order to live Or exist and those oppressed people who are by the logic of capitalist rules, refused even this Opportunity - the unemployed, housewives and other Non-earners. It is only to these that our duties extend. We are not concerned with protecting the profitability of native or foreign profit-makers. If, because we demand decent standards, they threaten us with blackmail, and as in the case of Ferenka, they

carried to it's cold-blooded conclusion, then they must be made pay the penalty. This however, can only be achieved by a trade union movement, genuinely united to protect it's own interests, and with a fighting and independent strategy for doing so!

PART III

In previous chapters we have dealt with the inter union dispute and the day tc day develcpments of the strike. We must now turn our attention to what can be learned by the trade unicn and working class movement!

I.7.G.W.U. ROLE

By October 1977, it was clear that the ITGWU had sided with management by declaring through John Carroll that esse. This (the strike) is the work of a small group who are seeking power for themselves and are willing to close the factory in the attempt." {See "Bottom Dog" 14 October 1977 Volume 5, No, 93) The leading ITGWU official at Ferenka, V. Moran went further by publicly calling for ® "blacklist" "He felt the workgorce was neceraulted toc quick@y, which was no one's fault as the company wanted to get antec pacduction.

He considered, however, that there wa a need {or Screening as At wads certain a number of dissidents were bound to gex empLoyment." Irish Press, 11 October '77.

At this stace it was potently clear that over 80% of production workers had voted to join the MPGWU. A glance through local and naticnal newspapers of the period will emphasise this, as photographs of the MPGWU meetings held in the Savoy, Limerick (maximum seating capacity 1,500) showed a packed audience, compared with the ITGWU meetings held in Connolly Hall, Limerick (maximum seating capacity 150).

During this period also, the Transport Union suggested that a campaign of intimidation was underway to prevent Ferenks workers from attending their meetings. The only public

evidence of such intimidation was a gathering of people out of sheer interest on the opposite side of O'Connell Street to Connolly Hall, to view the "news as it happened", while ITGWU workers "trickled in" to what they had advertised as a "mass meeting" of their Ferenka Branch. As well as members of the general public, this "interested group" also included a few members of the MPGWU.

As the dispute advanced and Christmas began to appear on the horizon, the Limerick Leader published (5/11/'77) a full page humanitarian appeal by the Managing Director of Ferenka, Mr. Van Wigingarden pleading with workers to return unconditionally as Christmas was a "season of goodwill" and he was anxious to avoid any hardship being incurred by the wives and families, In the same "public address" to his workers, he threatened the closure of the plant. As the jigsaw puzzle of the Ferenka dispute failed to come together, desperate manoeuvers and initiatives were empioyed on all sides of the class divide! The ITGWU threatened with the loss of a large number of members went out of its way to appear as the sole negotiating union for the production workers. Earlier, on 14/10/'77, it had inserted a rather large black rimmed (°) advertisement in all of the national dailies, where it appealed for resolution of the dispute ..

..-.- "through established conciliation procedures."

In the same advertisement, it said of the MPGWU ese. "DO we now take it that the MPGWU no longer intends to adhere to management/union agreements in any instance, that for example, the agreement it has with employers may ke ignored and violated by other unions?" .....

However, two weeks later, Fintan Kennedy, President of the ITGWU, speaking at 3 meeting cf the Dublin District Council of the union made a plea for all unions to join the ICTU. This clearly marked the beginning of recognition by the Transport Union that it's membership at Ferenka had dwindled. A few days prior to this, the ITGWU in an effort to gain an image of militancy on a national scale, threatened to close all of the Dublin big stores because 500 staff at Roches Stores in Henry Street had been issued with protective notice, as a result of a breakdown in negotiations, because of a two week-old official strike by delivery men.

Thus, the ITGWU was to be the first group on a national scale to draw lessons from the Ferenka debacle - the lesson that one can only go so far in becoming intecrated with unicn/management "deals" to the detriment of workers' interests.

Fintan Kennedy once ayain made a call for ....

“harmony in the Trade Union Movement", but this time it came iauch tco late - the occasion being the annual dinner dance of the Limerick No, 1 branch of the ITGiWU.- On New Year's Eve '77, a month after the Akzo management had ordered the workers out cf the Ferenka plant, to listen to their fate on tne 6.15 News Bulletin.

So, from what was pinned - "The Long Hot Summer" of ‘76, when the Ferenka production workers went on strike because of 3 main issues in June '76, drawn up by 70 of the Transport Union production workers; -

(1) EXCESSIVE HEAT

(2) POOR COMPANY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

(3) LACK OF ADEQUATE COMMUNICATIONS AT

TRADE UNION LEVEL

- to the bitter, cold and unemployed winter months of '77/'78, came an offer which was much too little and far too late.

in the months that followed, the Transport Union stepped up its militancy. After accepting the principle of National Wage Agreements in the November '77 ICTU conference, it called upon its members to reject the money terms of the N.W.A., and launched a public campaign for a "no vote" at the special delegate conference in the Spring of '78. It also launched a campaign to increase the wages of the lower paid.

At its annual conference in Strandhill, Sligo, in May '78, speaker after speaker made reference to the cancer of capitalism and an onlooker could be

forgiven for thinking that he or she was witnessing a mass rally of a major European Communist Party rather than the annual "get-to-gether" of Ireland's largest trade union.

At this point, we wish to stress that this pamphlet is in no way attempting to conduct a “griping tirade" against the union, which Connolly and Larkin founded, to cater especially for low paid general workers; a union which grew gS , in c Her, ALL

BLAST ~ THEY THER

STOPPED AGAIN L=By Now up in the blcodshed of the 1913 Dublin Lock-out a union which for a brief period smashed the sectarianism which divided and still divides Loyalist and anti-unionists workers in the North; and a union which has as its siogan "One Big Union". The latter when it was first coined emphasised strength and solidarity, rather than large dues collections and bureaucracy: This union has still within its ranks large numbers of workers and unfortunately small numbers of leaders who are willing and able to fight to make these ideals a reality.

THE ROLE OF THE LIMERICK COUNCIL

OF TRADE UNIONS

In the early stages of the Ferenka strike, the Limerick Trades Council plaved a relatively progressive role, more or less supporting the democratic demand of the strikers to a union of their choice. This is well documented in the first chapter of this pamphlet. As developments began to become more serious, the Council capitulated to the “public outcry" that was being articulated by the politicians and the business organisations.

This capitulation culminated in a statement by Ger South at the mass meeting in the Annacctty plant on 2 December, 4 days after the closure announcement was made and while the MPGWU production workers were in occupation of the security office at the main gate, which left them in control of the whole plant as the mian gate was operated by an automatic switch inside the office. In addition to this, the occupying workers, carried out periodic patrols around the perimeter of the factory site as weil as checking in case any movement of equipnment was taking place from inside the factory itself.

Ger South, Vice President of the Council, suggested at the mass rally that the MPGWU workers should end their occupation, as the only "glimmers of hope" lay in the delegation to the Taoiseach which Dr. Newman, Catholic Bishop of Limerick, was Organising the following week.

Prior to the closure announcement, Minister

O'Malley in a meeting with the Board of Enka (late November '77) was almost certainly made aware of Enka's decision to ‘pull out". His ‘grave statement' on an RTE news programme, the week before the closure, indicates this and this sense of 'gravity' almost certainly influenced the decision of the striking production workers to return to work on Monday 28 November, by a majority of 418 to 13 (at a meeting in the Savoy Limerick 26 November), on almost identical settlement proposals to those which were overwhelmingly rejected by a similar meeting one week earlier.

The Vice President of the Limerick Trades Council on 2 December, was therefore asking the workforce at Ferenka to put their livelihoods in the hands of the "Bishop's delegation" to Jack Lynch, who was then and presumably still is, leader of the same party as Des O'Malley, who more than likely proved his commitment to Irish workers by waving the big stick at them to return to work or else ..., while at the same time he probably knew that such a return would be nothing more than a charade since the minds of Akzo's big guns were firmly set on closure, - their thinking being that the vast majority of Ferenka production workers would no longer accept bad working conditions, cheap labour and most important of all inadequate and frustrating union representation. Thus, the economics which first encouraged Akzo to produce steelcord at Annacotty had gone and with it the jobs of 1,400 irish workers.

On the same day as the "United Workers of Ferenka" meeting, the "Bottom Dog" published an article headed "Ferenka - Support the Occupation", an extract from which follows :-

DIRECT ACTION BY WORKERS

Those who have been to the forefront in the defence of the rights of the Ferenka workers - the MPGWU production workers-within hours of the closure announcement, gave the Leadership necessary to aL 1400 Ferenka workers for Saving the jobs.

They took dinect action by occupying the factory.

Tietnr occupation must be supported by ak the unions in the factory, and indeed, by the 1nish Trade Uriton Movement as a whole.

By occupying the factory, they are preventing Ferenka from pulling out. Ferenka will be unable to go ahead with the Liquidation while the workers ane in contrack of the plant.

However, 4 the totak workforce is to be kept together, the occupation must be intensified, dnvolving as many of the workers as possible, The factory could be turned into a meeting ground for discussing how best the jobs can be saved. With this degree of involvement and controk, the Ferenka workers wih be in a Sthong position for mounting a@ campaign to save the jobs. They witk aZso oe abke to force Ferenka to account fcr the past 5 yearns of production, 14 the company was incurring Losses, Let them prove it, by making public the accounts gor the period they were in operation at Annacotty. Surely, those whose Livelihood is invested in the factory, have more of aright to thes than the shareholders, Ferenka should be forced to keep the plant open: -If they are not capable of doing 40, then the demand for nationakising it, without compensation and under workers’ control, shoukd be taken up. Given the nature of the highly specialised product being produced - steelcornd - the trade union movement will have to fight for the market, by Looking for support from fellow trade unionists dn countries where the markets ane.

NEED FOR TRADE UNION - WIDE SOLIDARITY

By cakhLing far the workers to end the occupation, the Taades Counctlh itselgé 44 alkowing "the main 4s5ue to be side-tracked", and one must ask X4€ the Vice President of Congress, Harotd O'Sullivan, was playing some kind of personal adventure, oy calling fer an occupation of Ferenka on Monday When the closure was anncunced and telling the occupying workers to come out on Wednesday.

Maybe he sssued the calk in the comfortable bekiek that it would not be taken up?

Fan from taking the initiative from the workers and putting it into the hands of those who have held "high powered negotiations" in tne past to save every factory that ckosed down, from the Limerick Shoe Factory to Clover Meats, the trade union movement should be mobilising full support fon the workers who ane willing to fight. Demonstrations and meetings need to be he£d throughout the country, to show Government and employers alike that’ the unions will not take this chosurne Lying down. The Trades Council can play Ait'S pant by calling a national mobikisation for Limerick. The Dutch trade unions, in whose country Enka have their headquarters, have offered their support, but need mone information. They should be taken at thein word and Amniediate Links Should be made, especiakly between the workers at Ferenka and the workers at the Arnhem plant. After all, At was Links of this nature that blacked the company in it's efforts to Lay off 5,000 workers, throughout the Akzo: group in 1972.

"Bottom Dog" No. 96, 2/12/'77

THE MPGKU AND THE OCCUPATION

During the course of the Ferenka dispute, the MPGWU came in for a lot of adverse publicity.

To the business organisations, the local media, and all sorts of local and national reactionaries, they were a "maverick union", meddling in a matter which did not concern them.

To the Transport Union, they were a "poaching" and non congress union trying to get hold of a large number of their members. However, to the production workers they were their last hope they had come to this union in a last ditch effort to gain adequate union representation.

For years, the workforce at Ferenka had experienced decile union representation. Big play was made of the fact that a large percentage of the production wcerkers were from a rural background and therefore did not understand the "complexities" of Trade Union representation, and industrial relations. This rationale was used by both the regimental management. approach and as an escape valve for responsibility by the officialdom of ITGWU, when they were cailed upon by the media, to explain the "festering dispute". But divisive tactics iike these are not new to the Trade Union Movement and Philip Byrnes, chairperson of the strike committee, when posed with this position on the politics programme, swept such nonsense aside by declaring that if the total workforce was from an urban background, steeped in a true trade union tradition, Ferenka would never have been allowed to escape for as long as they did with the policy of low pay and bad conditions.

It was in this kind of atmosphere that the MPGWU arrived as the main union representing production workers. In the early stages, they showed determination to truly represent their new members at Ferenka. This was expressed in their early declaration te see the strike through to the “bitter end", in their insistence on the reinstatement of Philip Byrnes, when Ferenka tried to make him the sacrificial lamb in the resolution of the dispute, and in their paying out of £7 per week strike pay, although they had not collected a penny in union dues from the striking workers. As time wore on, the union became stalling and hesitant, holding back on direct action by the Labour Movement in favour of "this and that" secret deal that was being or could be worked out behind closed doors. The crunch was soon to come, with the closure announcement and the resultant occupation of what became known as “Mahogany Row", and later the security office. On the basis of a plea from the Limerick Council of Trade Unions, the MPGWU called off the occupation and so ail effort and ‘hope' was channelled into the Bishop's delegation. This in effect marked the end of the fight to save the jobs.

At the MPGWU conference held in Limerick in June '78, Ferenka was only briefly mentioned, despite the fact that at that time, various national dailies and the local press carried banner headlines of a pending statement by

Des O'Malley on the "Future of the Ferenka Plant". The statement, when it did come contained the news that the IDA had failed in their attempts to attract the Chicago whiz-kid De Lorean to set up a car plant at Annacotty. Instead, the £6l1m plant is to be built in the Twinbrook Estate area of Belfast - an anti-unionist area, where over 1/4 of the registered workforce is unemployed.

This news was debated in the media in terms of the superiority of the British Government over the IDA in it's offer to multi-nationals.

What it does display in reality is the nature of the Irish economy as a whole - an economy divided and weakened by partition which is totally dependent for its survival on the bait which it can offer tc the unscrupulous and moral-less multinational giants. This bait consists of large grants and loans, tax free concessions, dociie and ‘unorganised workers, who are demoralised by years on the @ole. The reason given by the IDA for losing the De Lorean contract was that it did not want to commit £37m (the amount demanded) of public money to the venture. In the past, it showed no such scruples as it dished out millions to every and any kind of venture that would set up an industry in the 26 counties, regardless of the number of jobs involved. The true story is more than likely that De Lorean did not consider the Ferenka plant sufficiently attractive because of the former workers demands for a living wage and human working conditions. The massive unemployment in the anti-unionist areas in the North, in his thinking, offered a work-hungry workforce, which might be more likely to accept inadequate wages and conditions. Hopefully, the spirit which has guided the anti-unionist population in the North over the past 10 years in its resistance to the oppression of British guns and constant harassment will prove De Lorean wrong in his greedy and grabbing calculation. Meanwhile, the commitment given by the Limerick Trades Council to stop the movement of any machinery etc. from the Ferenka pl proved to be as worthless as the’ conmitiieck given by the Government to the "Bishop's delegation" in early December '77. The ending of the occupation at the behest of the leadership of the MPGWU marked the end of save the jobs. any attempt to The lesson to be learned from this is that onl by self-reliance and direct action by workers : can the interests of workers be defended History has proven this time and time again In the annals of labour history, established politicians and clergymen do ; prominently. ¥ not figure very In the final analysis, the real lessons of the Ferenka case lie in the nature of the Irish economy, divided and weakened as a result of the political division of the country.

Although a member of the E.E.C., Ireland is an underdeveloped economy which has tried since to gain an industrial base by protectionism in the 30's and opening up of the economy in the 26 counties in the 50's and now as the eee industries in the North ade awa the e j i ede _ conomy there is also being The security of work for all Irish w i in an independent and indigenous tidaeeciey boss The way to such a solution lies in the path of eteat change. Until that charge is being a for throughout the Labour Movement and in . sh society generally, the Trade Union Movement wes it to the Irish working class of which it Claims leadership to develop a concrete : - eorive for protecting every single job which : threatened. In the last few years, workers Sc tened with redundancy have clearly shown ; ir willingness to fight. Leadership of the rish Trade Union Movement will pay dearly if this fighting spirit is not observed.

. EPILOGUE

On 9 June, 1978 the Taoiseach, Jack Lynch officially declared open work on the "Giant £287m Aluminium Plant" at Aughinish Island, in the Askeaton area of West Limerick where up to now, besides the port of Foynes, the only other visible sign of industry has been "overnight caravan sites" on the scenic coast road which leads to Ballybunion seaside resort. In his opening address, Mr. Lynch spoke of the desirability of such heavy industry and called on workers not to “insist on rights". In November, '77 the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy made a similar plea to workers not "to insist on their rights", in the case of the Ferenka strikers.

This dependence on foreign investment to the detriment of Irish workers clearly underlines the nature of the Irish economy and the role of the 26 counties governments. This one example of a disaster in East Limerick in November '77, with the biggest single closure in the history of the state, and the pathetic utterances of Jack Lynch in West Limerick in June '78, shows to the fullest extent, the degree to which a dependent Government is willing to go in its attack on the rights of Irish workers.

The recent battle to attract the De Lorean multi-million car complex to set up in Limerick or West Belfast, areas on both sides of the border with high unemployment rates, should act as a compass for Irish workers for the future - Roy Mason and Jack Lynch may speak in glowing terms of advances being made in their respective efforts to secure employment, but as long as this employment is dependent on handouts and coaxing of multi-nationals, to the detriment of workers' rights, in a weak and divided Ireland, the Irish working class can expect many more Ferenkas, The plant at Annacotty now lies silent and empty. In return for paying the Ferenka debts to local traders, Akzo was allowed to ship the steel cord-making machinery back to Holland at a bargain price.

Ger South's (vice-president of the Limerick Trades Councii} promise to the workers that if they ended the occupation "the local trade unions will ensure that nothing leaves the factory" has been shown to count for nothing.

How true the following lines from the old Bottom Dog of 1917 must now ring in the ears of former Ferenka workers :- "Be workers stikl to workers true Among ourselves united; For never but by worker's hands Wilk workers wrongs be righted."

James Connolly, one of the leaders of the 1916 Insurrection, wrote these words in1897, “Even under the most favourable circumstances, even 4f by some miracle, we were able to cover tne green fields of Inekand with huge, ualy factonizs, wath chimnies belching forth volumes Ch poisonous smoke and coating the isLand with a sooty desokatron - even then we would cuickly find that under the conditions born of the naoctakist system, our hopes of keeping cur ula ab a manufacturing notion would depend on Our ability to work harder and Longer for a Lowen wage than tne other nations of Eurcpe, 4n onder that our middle class may have the Opportunity of selling their gcods at a Lauer price than their competitors. This i8 equivalent fo saying that cur chance cf making Treland a manufacturing nation would depend on us becoming the Lowest blackLegs in Europe," (Ref. : Erin's Hope, the End and the Means - New Book Publications - 1968 Pages 14-15)

The Bottom Dog The Bottom Dog (the working class paper of North Munster) is published by a group of Socialists and Republicans, active in the trade union movement.

Named after a Limerick trade union publication of 1917-'18 the paper has endeavoured to live up to the slogan on the mast head of its predecessor - "We must look at life We dedicate this pamphlet to the former — in all its aspects Ferenka workers who are suffering blacklisting f rom the point of at the hands of local employers and we hope that : ¢ the | members of the ITGWU who read this account of view of the ‘Bottom the dispute will raise their voices in opposition Dog’ - the oppressed - be it nation, class or sex." to their union's policy of demanding the payment of back dues from former Ferenka workers who left the Transport Union over a year ago and now find they have to rejoin in order to take up employment in factories where the ITGWU has closed shop agreements. The forced payment of these ‘'dues' will in no way further the unity of trade union movement, in it's fight for improved living standards and better working conditions, for its members.

The Bottom Dog is available from the following addresses :- 109 O'Malley Park, Limerick.

26 Corravonne Green, Ennis.

P. Mooney, Ballyhea, Charleville, Co. Cork.

8 issues cost £l.

Ferenka Ferenka Ltd., the Irish subsidiary of the giant Dutch multinational, Akzo, closed down it's Limerick plant on November 28, 1977, putting 1,400 people out of work: Many reasons have been given for the closure, Some have argued that the workers were simply strike happy and that the two month dispute prior to the closure was the straw which broke the camel's back! Others have suggested that the company precipitated the strike so that it could pull out with the minimum of fuss, as it could no longer see prospects of large profits!

Thousands of news column inches have been devoted w to the biggest single job loss in the history of ng the 26 County State; however these have mainly An, concentrated on the problems of the parent aff; company, the set back to Fianna Fail's job Rag creation programme and the effects the closure by 5 may have on future multinational investment in be Ireland: amepu ay pur Very little attention has been given to the to con tett plight of those who have been most affected - to eit f the 1,400 ex-Ferenka workers, who were left On trert th jobless as a result of the shut-down. dots me ' QWiry, the Pemte a This pamphlet is an attempt to redress this pose der a d 4, ns balance, as well as posing the whole question fhe at of the role which multinationals play of | nvegg a msi2 in the Irish economy. he pp, F&tio On s Actiy. - . Ay 44p including VAT pedy Maing ” flys Jp, Wer, Said’ tesa, Fern 1'In rerenka (Ve “Gove ee fox 2° tiers. = tr