Sacked Workers Recommence Hunger Strike at Unite offices
national |
worker & community struggles and protests |
feature 
Friday May 16, 2008 11:34
by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI
Socialist Party claim that Unite renege on deal
The three sacked airport shop stewards who called off a week long hunger and thirst strike on 11 April, after they received assurances from their union, Unite, that commitments made to them last September would be met, have resumed protest action at Transport House.
In a repeat of the action that last month led to the union calling the police to remove the protesters, Gordon McNeill this morning occupied the awning at the front of the building. Madan Gupta and Chris Bowyer have said they will take his place if the union has him arrested.
Related Links: Previous Indy coverage | Socialist Party | Unite |
"We have learned that nothing the Unite leadership say can be trusted. Every member of the union would do well to note the way we have been lied to and fobbed off" Gordon McNeill
The previous hunger strike ended with a promise from the union that they would pay the outstanding legal bill for the long court action taken by the sacked workers against their former employer, ICTS. Unite also said that they would make an offer of compensation to the shop stewards for the hardship which the actions of the union leadership had put them through. All this was to have been done by 30 April.
The 30 April deadline passed without any movement by the Unite leadership on any of these issues. Instead, on 8 May, the shop stewards received a letter from the union solicitor which went back on all the previous promises that had been made.
On four occasions over the last eight months the Unite leadership gave firm guarantees that they will pay the legal bills and offer compensation. Their latest letter revokes all these promises. All it offers is to continue discussions which have already dragged on for years. For the first time it introduces strings and conditions on any offer. In a recent meeting with the shop stewards, Unite Irish Regional Secretary, Jimmy Kelly, made clear that, as a precondition for any settlement, he wanted a letter from the shop stewards exonerating himself and current General Secretary, Tony Woodley, for their role in the dispute.
Faced with this double dealing and intransigence the shop stewards can only conclude that the Unite leadership have never had any intention of resolving this dispute and have been stringing them along with false promises. They have therefore decided to begin an escalating campaign of public protest action to force the union leadership to stand by their earlier promises.
Comments (50 of 50)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50maybe this will be posted this time, Gordan McNeil and others get endless space here to make comments and assertions that go unquestioned and to insinuate serious things that they will not say. This all goes to paint a totally false picture of events to readers of this site. In the interest of fairness I would ask a few questions that might provide clarity to fair minded observers wondering whats going on here, simple answers to the questions as listed, not speeches and spin, would be appreciated
1. Was Tony Woodley the General Secretary of Unite when this problem arose?
2. Was Jimmy Kelly the Regional Secretary when this problem arose?
3. If not who was?
4. If not are the people involved at the time involved in Unite now?
5. Is the Official who done the lads in employed by Unite now?
6. When did these alleged death threats occur?
7. Are the 3 lads hinting that Jimy Kelly or Officials or staff of Unite, currently employed, are involved in this?
8. Where the current incumbents of the various relevant positions, including Jimmy Kelly, in position when these alleged threats were issued?
9. Are the three lads members of Unite?
10. Can the lads post a letter from their Solicitor stating that he is unpaid and that the representatives for the coming appeal will be unpaid?
11. How much 'compensation' do the 3 lads want out of Unites members money to resolve this issue?
perhaps clear answers to these simple questions might bring some clarity, objectivity and fairness to this issue and help observers to understand the issues fully.
Many of the "questions" put by our pro-bureaucrat friend above have been answered repeatedly on this site and elsewhere. Simply from previous indymedia coverage I can answer most of them. Of course, our friend of the bureaucrats is well aware that there is no mystery behind most of these questions. He is simply posting them up in an attempt to throw mud at some very brave men and women who have been thoroughly shafted by a succession of union leaders.
Just in case anyone is distracted by this nonsense:
The current top Unite officials were not in place when the union leadership undermined the airport workers strike. A previous set of bureaucrats was. The current crowd have been in place for: years of refusal to rectify the previous horrific actions of the union bureaucracy, endless broken promises, the calling of the cops on the men while they protested, an attempt to force the sacked strikers to accept a terrible deal. The initial incident happened on someone else's watch. The years since happened on theirs. Meet the new bureaucrats, the same as the old ones.
As for the rest of the issues raised, those concerning the death threats and so on, I don't know the details although regarding your last question, it has been made clear by the men that the compensation issue should be determined by negotiation. Perhaps the sacked workers will have the time to answer you on the rest of these details when their current protest outside union offices is over. Assuming of course that the current bureaucracy (yes, the current lot, not the lot they replaced a long time ago) doesn't allow their health to be damaged irreparably in the meantime.
all organisations of size have bureaucracies, especially one with 2 million members, your rhetoric and use of such terms betrays the paucity of your logic and your naivety
now, I know you won't like this 'comrade' but some facts
Tony Woodley wasn't the General Secretary, Bill Morris was
Jimmy Kelly wasn't the Regional Secretary, or Mick O'Reilly even, Jimmy Elsby then Brendan Hodgers were
The Official who did the undoubtedly dirty deed was Joe McCusker, long since left the ATGWU and never ever an employee of Unite
The 'death threats' are alleged to have happened years ago, before Jimmy Kelly was put in position
Jimmy Kelly is in position less than a year, not 'years'
you don't like Jimmy Kelly because he is in the SWP, a pathetic side show of a party like the Socialist party is a pathetic side show of a party
this is a squabble among two irrelevant parties of the far left, nothing more, nothing less
it is damaging to all real trade unionsits who live in the real world
the only person damaging gordan mcneils health is gordan mcneill, soemthing he should be big enough to take responsibility for himself instead of always looking for somebody else to blame.
was there wrong done to the three lads? absolutely there was
welcome to planet earth, a place where bad things, sometimes really really bad things, happen like cancer and pain, and suffering, and hurt, and death
stop playing politics with peoples injustices and lives,
And there we have it. It didn't take long for our pro-bureaucrat friend to move from talking blandly about posing questions in the name of "clarity, objectivity and fairness" to this ranting spew of bile.
I'm left wondering if "bigjimlarkin" is, like Kelly, himself a member of Unite's unelected bureaucracy or if he is an unpaid supporter. I suppose it makes little difference. Everyone who has been following the issue is quite aware that Kelly, Woodley and the rest of the current crop of bureaucrats came to power after the original sackings. Equally, everyone is aware that Woodley has been in position since 2003, while Kelly, his chief Irish underling, has been Irish secretary for a year and before that was President of the Union.
Let me repeat: Woodley has been in position for five years. Kelly has been in one of the top jobs for years also, currently Irish secretary previously as union President. During the period of years when these men and their allies in the allegedly "left" wing of the bureaucracy have run the union: Unite has tried to force the men to accept an astoundingly shoddy deal with the employers. They have left the men to fight their court case - which resulted in a significant ruling for all workers - alone, without union support. The union has broken endless promises. The cops have been called on the workers while they protest. And still, the union bureaucracy refuses to deal with the outstanding issues. Meet the new bureaucrats - the same as the old bureaucrats.
The idea that this is a row between the Socialist Party and the SWP is another red herring, deliberately introduced to distract from the men's entirely justified struggle against the bureaucracy. It is certainly true that supporters of the workers have been shocked by the sight of a prominent SWP member opposing them, but as you point out at some length, Kelly's prominence in the dispute is relatively recent. When he was President he certainly backed Woodley and the rest of the bureaucracy, but he wasn't their point man in Ireland. Yet the dispute has been going on for many years now. I don't think that the Socialist Party or any of the other people supporting the sacked workers have the prescience or the Machiavellian skills to manufacture a dispute and support those involved in it tirelessly for years on end, on the off chance that some years later an SWP member would be in the front rank of their opponents.
As I said above, I don't know if you are actually an unelected bureaucrat defending his bosses or if you are just some hack looking for such a job some day. Either way, your attempts to throw mud won't work. I suggest that you scuttle back under your rock.
AN explanation for those who may not realise what this is really about- The Socialist Party are using this dispute to undermine the leadership of the Unite union, who support their great rivals, the Socialist Workers Party.
Hope no one gets hurt.
did you ever hear of balance or is propaganda all that works for you 'comrade'?
I think if anybody reads the above 4 posts it will be clear who the mud slinging comes from
of course the Socialist Party didnt manufacture this issue, the original injustice did and the union and the 3 lads perpetuated it. nobody is 100% in the right, or in the wrong here.
as for the socialist party? they just manipulate it for their own narrow interests and petty jealousies
if that is not the case why where these attacks not launched against Mick O'Reilly? he was Regional Secretary for 3 years.is it because is isnt a members of the SWP and so it wouldnt be as much fun for the lads to have a go at him?
who I work for is none of your business, if indeed I work at all, but I believe I am a trade unionist and as such I resent fringe parties playing with and damaging trade unionism for no purpose, and I also resent people in 'transport house' being accused of complicity in alleged death threats and kidnapping
to accuse decent working people of such and then accuse me of mud slinging?? beggars belief
Firstly, I'm no "comrade" of anyone who supports a union bureaucracy against sacked workers.
Secondly, there was nothing remotely unbalanced in what I wrote. Given that a bureaucrat or supporter of the bureaucracy has come to this site to smear sacked trade unionists while one of them is on hunger and thirst strike, the tone of my response to you was rather mild. Most other people here would be markedly less polite to you than I was.
I note of course that you don't actually engage with anything I wrote. You don't deny that Woodley has been in charge of the union for five years of this dispute or that Kelly has been his chief Irish underling for a year and was one of his main underlings in Britain before that. You don't deny that this dispute has been going on for years under their watch. You don't deny the failure of the union leadership to settle this dispute. You don't deny the broken promises, the cops being called, the attempt to bounce the workers into accepting a dismal deal with the employers or the fact that the current union leaders left them to fight their legal battle alone. You don't deny it, because you can't. It's all true.
This dispute with the union bureaucracy has gone on for many years now. At first, when "regime change" occurred in UNITE, it appeared that the new bureaucrats would at least attempt to deal fairly with the workers. Things have become increasingly bitter as it became more and more clear that, as I've said above, the new bureaucrats are much the same as the old ones.
As we are all aware, the Socialist Party and other supporters of the workers within the labour movement didn't create this issue. All they've done is their duty as socialists, trade unionists and decent human beings in supporting the sacked workers through thick and thin. We should expect no less from anyone.
I accept the 3 lads were wronged if u read my posts
I accept the union continue to be wrong if you read my posts as you clearly cant be bothered to
I believe the 3 lads are also wrong,I think the hunger strike tactic is a total disgrace to the movement
I do not think anybody should engage such tactics against a workers collective
Unite is a workers collective
I accept the 3 lads should not be out of pocket or have any costs
I do not want any of my money, as a Unite member, being paid in compensation
you see I 'comrade', unlike you, see right and wrong on both sides
its that planet earth concept again you see, reality rather than ideology
I have indeed been reading your posts, although I am increasingly wondering why I bother to. You alternate between vicious attacks on the sacked workers and their supporters and a kind of faux-even handedness. Even the latter part of your routine is deeply objectionable because it pretends that the workers and the bureaucrats who continue to screw them over are both equally wrong, when in fact this matter is a very simple case of a group of workers struggling against an employer which sacked them and a union bureaucracy which first aided the employers and then abandoned the workers.
I am glad to hear that you think that the union should cover the men's legal costs, at this massively belated date. Perhaps you should get on the phone to Kelly and Woodley and tell them that (or alternatively, just shout upstairs to one of them). As for the issue of compensation, it seems to me as I suspect it does to most people, very obvious that a union which helped a company sack a group of workers should compensate them for that crime against trade unionism and elementary human decency.
On the issue of the hunger strike, you seem unaware that amongst the large group of people who have supported the workers, the Socialist Party has consistently advised the men against that tactic. However, it is the sacked workers own dispute and those who support them respect their right to choose their own tactics and will continue to give whatever aid is possible to them.
I should of course point out that this reluctance to use the hunger strike tactic has nothing to do with any newly coined principle that it is illegitimate to use that tactic against a "workers collective" (actually, a highly bureaucratised workers collective controlled by a layer of mostly unelected and overpaid officials at the top). Instead some of the workers supporters have counselled against it because the union bureaucrats are quite likely to be callous enough to allow significant harm to be done to the men's health rather than do the decent thing.
insofar as is possible on here I think people who read this story and the comments from both of us will now have a fairer and wider perspective on the issues at play here
that was my sole reason for posting and many issues have now been clarified, thank you indymedia for that at least
finally I never viciously attacked the 3 lads, in any post.I do think they share the blame in this by their tactics and besmirching the names of everybody in Transport House with the scurrilous statements yesterday about alleged death threats emanating from there. I also think the focus on compensation is, at best, grubby
The Union however are primarily to blame, that is undoubted
in any event Im away off to have my dinner and if the 3 lads have any sense they'll do the same, nobody responds to blackmail lads, even when they are wrong
great to see the movement is in such great hands socialist party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
In reply to the questions posed by “BigJimLarkin” on his original posting, the sacked airport shop stewards have always been careful to stick to the facts of what has happened. To say that they are “insinuating things that they will not say” is itself an unsubstantiated insinuation which is, to say the least, unhelpful at this critical stage
The answer to most of “BigJim’s” questions are already there in the material the airport workers have produced over the years. But if there are still doubts and uncertainties it is worth recapping on these points.
Who is responsible?
Six years ago, when the airport workers were stitched up by the T&GWU because they rocked the boat of the all too close relationship between the union and the airport, the union was under the witchhunting leadership of Bill Morris. Mick O’Reilly and Eugene McGlone were then on the receiving end and had been ousted from their positions.
The people who dealt with the airport dispute at that time have either retired or moved sideways, all with full pensions and, in some cases compensation. Joe McCusker, the official who directly intrigued with ICTS, has retired with his pension and a good enough reference to secure him a job as a conciliation officer! in the Labour Relations Agency.
Meanwhile Gordon McNeill and Chris Bowyer have been out of work for six years; their unanswered job applications testify to the fact that they are now blacklisted. Madan Gupta has got a job in the City airport. He still has to work at 73 years of age to pay the debts from the legal case that Tony Woodley left them to fight on their own.
The people who were around six years ago are mostly gone, replaced by a leadership, Tony Woodley included, who championed the cause of the airport workers while they were in opposition, but very quickly dropped them once they took over the reins.
Those now in charge would have us believe that this whole dispute is just a hangover from the Morris days, while they have nothing to answer. The material issued by the airport workers explains in detail why this version of events just will not do.
The legal fees
Specifically Gordon McNeill is now on hunger and thirst strike because Tony Woodley has gone back on all the promises he, with Jimmy Kelly at his side, made to the shop stewards last September. He promised to pay the legal fees and to make an offer of compensation.
Eight months on the fees are unpaid. No offer has been made. The latest development on this came this morning when their solicitor informed them that the union was not budging either on the outstanding fees or on the costs of defending the Appeal by ICTS against the Tribunal decision.
Their solicitor and barrister now say that, because of this, they are going to walk from the case leaving the shop stewards to represent themselves. If this situation does not change – and it will only change when Tony Woodley commits to paying their costs – the likelihood is that ICTS will win the Appeal, courtesy of an own goal scored by Tony Woodley.
For millions of trade unionists this means that the added protection provided by the Tribunal judgement will be gone. For the shop stewards it also means that they will lose the money awarded them by the Tribunal which at them moment is held by the Court pending the appeal decision.
There is no good reason for the union’s prevarication on this. It is not a question of “protecting members money”. After all, if the Appeal is won - and the legal advice is that if properly defended it likely will be won - costs will be awarded against ICTS - an incentive you would think for the union to employ a good barrister and do so as quickly as possible to give them time to prepare the case.
As for the outstanding legal bill, there has been no movement at all on this since last autumn. 40,000 pounds which the workers have paid from their own pockets is being held by their solicitors, who are pursuing them for another 60,000.
“Big Jim” asks what level of compensation the shop stewards are demanding. They know they have a watertight legal case against Unite but have informed the union that they will not be taking the legal route. They have done this for two reasons. First and foremost, as trade unionists they don’t want to take the union to court. Secondly they have no money to pay the extravagant costs of any court action.
Their solicitors had advised them that they could claim huge damages in court but they have no intention of going down this road. Instead they have dismissed the legal team that would have handled this case and are saying to the union – deal with us directly.
Isn’t it quite comical how high paid senior officials, when confronted with a demand for redress from low paid workers whose lives have been turned upside down by the treachery of union officials, suddenly become the number one guardians of “the members money”? If they are really so concerned with costs the first thing they could do is get rid of the legal teams on all sides and negotiate a deal.
Rather than do this they keep repeating the mantra – “let the legal teams sort it out”. That shows how far they are removed from the reality of the position of extreme hardship the shop stewards find themselves in. The shop stewards have no money to keep their solicitor on board. Every delay and prevarication on the part of the union – and there have been too many to count - costs them more solicitors time and that costs them money they do not have.
As to the amount they are looking for - all they have said is; “make us an offer.” Despite promise after promise that an offer will come by this deadline or that, they are still waiting.
The death threats
These are not “alleged” death threats. What happened has been reported both to the union and to the police.
The threats were issued in 2003. They came in the period immediately after the sacked workers unanimously rejected the rotten deal that had been negotiated with ICTS by Tony Woodley. Bill Morris was not involved with the dispute at this time.
The workers were threatened twice. On one occasion two of the shop stewards were taken from their car at gunpoint and put in the back of a van. They were told to back off from the dispute or else. They can only surmise that this threat came from a paramilitary group, but do not know which group was involved or on whose behalf they were acting.
The second threat came in the form of threatening letters sent to their homes. The letter showed photos of the shop stewards (taken outside Transport House) along with a death threat. The evidence that points to these having been sent from someone within Transport House relates to way in which the letter to Madan Gupta was addressed.
Were these threats issued by someone currently working in Transport House? That question is not for the shop stewards to answer; it is a question that should properly be addressed to the leadership of the union. The fact that threats were issued is not news to the Unite leadership, nor are the details of what happened.
In 2004 the union held an inquiry into the airport dispute. The issue of the death threats was reported to the inquiry and is recorded in the report of the proceedings. Jimmy Kelly was not a full time official when the threats were made, nor at the time of the inquiry. However he was made aware of the threats last summer when Madan Gupta reported what had happened and the shop stewards showed him one of the threatening letters.
The recent material from the shop stewards merely reports the facts of what happened, just as they have already reported them to the union leadership and to the police. The question that must be asked, now that Unite’s backsliding and intransigence is focusing attention on this dispute, is what have the Unite leadership done about these serious allegations? Have they had an investigation to try to establish what happened? Or have they effectively just shrugged their shoulders and done nothing?
Are they members?
Gordon and Chris have informed Tony Woodley that they are withholding their subs in protest at the treatment they have received but will pay back the full arrears when the issue is resolved. Madan is the Unite rep in the City airport and has successfully stopped workers there from leaving to join another union over the way he has been mistreated.
Tony Woodley has accepted that they are still members. But whether they are or not is neither here nor there to the rights and wrongs of this dispute. Not many people would continue to pay subs to an organisation that had treated them in this way.
Jimmy Kelly
I am told that some people are alleging that this whole issue is really a spat between the Socialist Party and the SWP and that the airport workers are just being used by the Socialist Party to have a go at Jimmy Kelly. Anyone who even thinks in these terms must live in a festering sectarian cocoon.
What is this but the same argument that is used endlessly by employers: that disputes are caused by “agitators” and “militants” stirring up workers and not by real grievances. Whoever thinks Gordon McNeill would put his life at risk, to score some points on the SWP, or would allow himself to be manipulated by someone else who wants to do so, is not living in the real world.
For the record the Socialist Party have consistently tried to persuade the airport workers not to engage in hunger strikes; never mind hunger and thirst strikes. I have spent many hours since the agreed April 30 deadline for a resolution passed with no offer and no movement from Unite trying to persuade Gordon not to go on hunger strike.
I have tried to persuade him that what has happened is not worth him sacrificing his health, never mind his life. Gordon has agreed with me that it is almost ruled out that this intransigent Unite leadership will respond to a hunger strike until someone is either dead or in a coma, but he has still gone ahead.
True to form the Unite leaders have reacted by refusing all talks until the protest has been called off. This is the message that has come from Tony Woodley through Jimmy Kelly. The union won’t talk because there is a protest – but when there is no protest they don’t talk. For the airport workers it’s a catch 22 situation.
Despite this hard nosed attitude I will continue to try to persuade Gordon to come off and to argue with Madan and Chris that they should not take his place as they have threatened to do, but I don’t hold out much hope of success. The Unite leadership may find out that when you put someone in a position where they feel they have nothing left to lose you make a very dangerous enemy.
Finally, can Jimmy Kelly be held responsible for what is happening? There is no doubt that the main author of this intransigence is Tony Woodley. The question for Jimmy Kelly, who has been present at the discussions with the shop stewards over the past eight months, is why is he standing over this injustice. If he thinks the union should stand by the promises it has made he should speak out. The membership in Ireland expect more of their Regional Secretary than that he should be a courier and a left cover for Tony Woodley.
If he broke ranks and said the union should immediately meet the three commitments made last September he might just be able to resolve this. Jimmy Kelly has the opportunity to emerge with genuine credit from this situation. But if all he does is echo Tony Woodley he will make himself part responsible for what may happen.
this post is a valuable and more balanced description of events than the one sided account that began this story
maybe the socialist party will now continue to be more responsible and balanced in their reporting of the issue and what they expect to happen
and as I said throughout a genuine grievance has arisen, of a serious nature, that unite must rectify. there is no doubt that what happened to the 3 lads is a disgraceful episode in the unions history
Gordan McNeill is acting extremely irresponsibly by his action though, and I pray to god that he calls of his ridiculous hunger and thirst strike. nothing that has happened justifies such extreme measures and therefore in the event of anything happening to Mr. McNeill the responsibility will rest solely with him.If he doesn't care enough about himself he should stop this now for the sake of his family and children
This is the most demoralising chapter that i have ever witnessed in the labour movement.
As a member i would urge the leadership in Ireland and Tony Woodley in Britain to bring this this thing to a close for everyones sake. Make a serious offer re compensation it's the least these men deserve and its not 'grubby'. The union (previous leadership) lost them their jobs and betrayed them. the current leadership as well as inheriting all of the positives about the union also inherited this issue and now need to deal with it. As a union member in northern ireland I would also urge the union to move might and main to fight the company's appeal and defend the ruling.
I don't agree with hunger strike as a tactic and really really hope that Gordan stops, but do I understand it? Yes. Clearly they have done everything in their power to resolve this issue and feel they got nowhere - it must seem like they only way they can have an impact is by taking such extreme action - they have been driven to this point.
It is Saturday afternoon now - i don't know how long someone can last on thirst strike but clearly it can't be long - Unite have to put aside the side issues of leaders reputations etc. and give a firm public committment to these men and I really hope they do.
"Big Jim" above makes much of the fact that when this issue started the current UNITE leadreship were not in place. It was in fact Lord Morris (as he now is) and others who are to blame. I find this a pretty lame excuse, as the current situation is due to the breaking of promices made LAST MONTH. This is an issue fairly and squarely at the door of the current UNITE leadership. Unfortunately I have to say this is an issue that they have dealt with in a shameful manner, and in a way that brings shame on the trade union movement.
I can understand why people have affinities for their own union and find it difficult when it seems their union is under attack. However there is no point in burying ones head in the sand to the fact that Trade union leaderships are moving further and futher away from the people they represent. As witnessed by the previous T&G leader who now is part of the establishment.
The other major point on this issue is that by their actions UNITE are putting in jeapardy the historic victory won by the 3 sacked workers (Now under appeal) that they were sacked for their Trade Union activity. A ruling that all the employers will love to see quashed, and now it seems it won't be defended. How can UNITE justify that??
"Either the Unite leadership will give me justice or I will die" Gordon McNeill
Gordon McNeill is now on the fourth day of a hunger and thirst strike outside Transport House in Belfast.
His health is deteriorating rapidly and visibly. A healthy person might expect to live a week or so without food and water. Gordon suffers from a heart condition and has not recovered from the previous five day hunger and thirst strike at the start of April. He has already reached a critical stage.
Gordon has made it clear that he will refuse medical treatment if he is hospitalised.
"I am going to see this through to the end. Either the Unite leadership will give me justice or I will die. That is what it has come down to. Some Unite officials have been in contact with me but all they are offering are the same assurances that they have offered countless times in the past and have then reneged on.
"The conclusion I have drawn from all this backsliding is the Unite General Secretary Tony Woodley never had any intention of giving us justice. They have not paid our legal bills as promised. They have not paid for legal representation for the Appeal case which could overturn the important legal victory we won for the trade union movement. They have not offered a single penny in compensation.
"I made clear when I started on Thursday that this would be the last protest and I am even more determined now that it will be. The onus now is on the Unite leadership to act with haste to implement the promises they have made but have repeatedly broken"
Contact Gordon McNeill on 07934632366
Day 5 Hunger & Thirst Strike
Justice for the Sacked Belfast Airport Workers
RALLY 1pm Monday 19th May
Transport House, High St, Belfast
Sign the online petition through the link below