Dye company workers united & determined
by Tom Pearson Eighty Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union (TCFU) members remain outside the gates of their workplace, the Australian Dying Company (ADC) in the inner Melbourne suburb of Clifton Hill. The workers have stood together determined and united after being locked out by the company on December 1. During the dispute members of the management and hired security guards, viciously attacked and assaulted the workers. In a cynical move the company last week brought charges of assault in the Industrial Relations Commission against the union's Victorian Assistant Secretary, Michele O'Neil. Applying the now familiar tactics used by Patrick Stevedores against the MUA, ADC has: * threatened the locked-out workers with the sack; * offered them pay increases if they resign from the union and go on individual contracts; * hired 45 private security guards from Chubb, 24 hours a day, to bar the workers from the plant; * used non-union, untrained labour to do TCFU members' work; * spent $100,000 on security cameras and microphones to spy on protesting workers at the site; * hired the personnel lawyer of Workplace Relations Minister, Peter Reith, to represent the company. The workers had taken industrial action in support of their enterprise bargaining claims when management locked them out. Their claims are for improved pay and conditions in a job where they earn just $400 for a 55-hour week — averaging out at $7.27 per hour. At a meeting on January 12 they voted unanimously to continue their peaceful assembly. The meeting had been called after workers individually received letters from the company urging them to return to work but making no offers to resolve the dispute and followed an attack by security guards and management. It was attended by hundreds of other unionists. "This company thought they could break these workers over Christmas by locking them out, shutting down the factory and withholding payments legally owed to them", said Ms O'Neil. "They have greatly underestimated our members' strength and determination." Ms O'Neil pointed out that the union made substantial proposals to improve productivity in the enterprise agreement, but that the company continued its attack on the wages and conditions of its low-paid workforce. ADC may have also underestimated the strength and determination of union and community solidarity. By December 17 donations of food, money and Christmas presents were flooding in. Workers in other companies pledged weekly donations as the union movement swung in behind the workers. The workers have families to feed, bills to pay and children who were wondering what Christmas would bring. Said Michele O'Neil: "The spirit of Christmas lives in working people. We are overwhelmed by the generosity of other workers, unions and local residents." The TCFU reports that from day one of the dispute the company used violent and aggressive tactics, with security guards intimidating the workers, leading to an attack by management and the guards on January 11 in which workers were punched and abused by senior company managers and assaulted by security guards, with Ms O'Neil being thrown to the ground by manager John Dimisk. The union is seeking legal advice about the assault. On January 19 the Industrial Relations Commission told the company it could not sack its workforce, as it had been threatening to do, an order effective for one month. The Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) has asked, "Who is behind this company?", saying it was clear that ADC was out to destroy union membership and in particular the TCFU. "Why else would the company go to such lengths to hire both the security company and the law firm that were so heavily involved in the maritime dispute in April? "Why else would they spend tens of thousands of dollars on security equipment when it would cost them a fraction of that amount to actually settle the enterprise bargaining dispute? "This company is on a mission to destroy the union. That mission may well have the backing of other textile industry employers who want to use a successful campaign against the union as a precedent. "The big question is: Who are the shady characters behind the ADC running it?"