In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:06:15 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: .

I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their
employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before
they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?

Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
outside the terms of the agreement.

Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive
without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst
the law takes its course? Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides which,
they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were a legally
legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have assisted with
that. The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been bright
enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore didn't back it.

And then the company sacked employees not involved in the strike. NB Not made
them redundant - but sacked them. The only person who should be out of a job
now is that idiot USAian who sacked them and refuses to re-instate them.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing