Strike at the Ivy House

[BrandNewGuy]

This on Twitter from @ivyhouseunion earlier today:

"Four members of staff at the Ivy House Nunhead were fired on Wednesday without reason, notice or investigation. This is unethical employment practices and we will strike until they are reinstated! #savetheivyhouse"

And just now on Facebook:

"WILDCAT ACTION HAPPENING NOW AT THE IVY HOUSE IN SOUTH LONDON!

Calling for re-instatement of victimised union members.

When Ivy house staff put in a request for union recognition, 5 [sic] members of staff were fired. Today they stand up and demand those jobs back! Come stand with the Ivy House members!"

Can anyone give any more detail than this? As an Ivy House community shareholder, I find this very troubling if it's true, though maybe we're only hearing one side of it.

[KidKruger]

drove past earlier and wondered what 'save the ivy house' meant (I thought it had already been saved by setting-up as a community asset, or whatever the term is).

[malumbu]

Apologies for posting, I've placed an embargo on myself. They had run out of beer (ale) and traditional cider on Friday night, and blamed it on staff absence. Bit shocking as most of the people who saved the place are old faarts like me. Others may know better about the situation. I'll ask directly. OK off again now.

[DulwichFox]

A community pub that employs staff on Zero Hours Contracts and does not recognise Trades Unions.

Thats terrible.

People need to support staff and Boycott* the Ivy House until such time as

sacked workers are reinstated and Union recognition is established.

* Should it reopen.

DulwichFox

[peckman]

Maybe get both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions. The ivy house is a London living wage employer btw

[peckman]

And before everyone blames the committee . Without the committee there would not be a ivy house for you to sit and moan about the committee in

[Penguin68]

The law concerning recognition is quite detailed. Any employer employing fewer than 21 employees cannot be compelled to recognise a trade union, or undertake collective bargaining, and it is the union, not the employees, which must request recognition. On that basis I doubt the Ivy House has any statutory requirement to recognise a Trades Union.

https://www.pitmans.com/insights/blog/when-does-an-employer-have-to-recognise-a-trade-union/

https://www.gov.uk/trade-union-recognition-employers

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4018

This does not stop Ivy House staff belonging to a Trades Union, asking for that union's assistance in any personal dispute or asking for a representative of that Union to go with them into any dispute meeting.

If the staff have been employed for under 2 years they can be dismissed summarily.

Clearly there has been a break-down in trust etc. between the Ivy House and (some) of its staff. That is sad. If the staff have been dismissed then they cannot also be on strike, so I assume that it must be others who have withdrawn their labour, although this is not, then, a recognised strike. The Ivy House management is in the right (legally) in not offering recognition, based on the size of the business and the fact (if true) that a request for recognition has not come from a recognised union, but of staff themselves. I wonder which Union (if any) is involved, I would assume Unite or GMB in the catering industry? They are quite possibly in the right (legally) in dismissing the staff (based on their length of service), and we do not know what (if anything) other than a request for recognition led up to this. If employed for a sufficient length of time for any dismissal to be challenged, TU membership would normally never be considered sufficient cause at a tribunal.

[JoeLeg]

If the members of staff had been employed for less than two years then there?s nothing anyone can do about them losing their jobs. If they?re on zero hours contracts then it is akin to summary dismissal, as all management has to do is pay them what they?re owed. This is another reason why zero hours contracts should be outlawed, but that?s another matter.

If they were in fact fired with immediate effect for some kind of misdemeanours then it?s to be hoped the management had good cause, otherwise Ivy House is on dodgy legal ground. But there?s a number of other ways this could have actually played out.

I would urge people to get both sides of the story before leaping to conclusions; I suspect there?s more to this than meets the eye. Ivy House has never seemed like that kind of employer.

ETA - I really hope the Ivy House comes out and gives their side of the story. The rest of the staff went on unofficial strike in support of those dismissed, so there?s obviously some depth of feeling there. Very little union recognition exists in the hospitality industry, which is fortunately changing over time, but as Penguin points out small employers of any ilk are not required to recognise unions so most don?t.

[peckman]

Well said Joe leg . I suspect that the union request was a culmination of a number of factors . Tbh the service and attentiveness to detail has been going downhill steadily . I got the impression some staff felt like they were doing me a favour serving me sometimes

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would urge people to get both sides of the story

> before leaping to conclusions; I suspect there?s

> more to this than meets the eye. Ivy House has

> never seemed like that kind of employer.

Hear hear, if the Ivy House have been treating their workers badly then let's stand with the workers, but let's hear the full story. Certain people, including one who has already posted on this thread, have always been dying to see the pub fail for odd reasons of their own and will instantly jump on anything that looks detrimental to it. Hope the Ivy will tell their side of the tale so we can make a fair judgement.

[Sue]

Please nobody jump to any conclusions until we know all sides of this.

I write as an Ivy House shareholder and a lover of the pub.

ETA: Community shareholder, to clarify.

[KoolBananas]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Please nobody jump to any conclusions until we

> know all sides of this.

>

> I write as an Ivy House shareholder and a lover of

> the pub.

Here here!

[JohnL]

Workers can go on strike without the involvement of a union BUT it's got to be legal.

https://www.gov.uk/if-your-business-faces-industrial-action/nonunion-employees-and-strikes

[BrandNewGuy]

Received a shareholder's letter last night from the management team explaining the situation. I won't quote all of it, but the following clears up a few points:

"For confidentiality reasons we aren't able to share the details of the issues that came to our attention, but we want to reassure you that we are working with the staff involved to resolve them as soon as possible. As part of this process we have engaged in a full day of discussions with staff and union representatives today.

The matter of zero hours contracts has been raised in the course of these discussions and shareholders may be concerned to know our position. The Ivy House has always offered fixed hours contracts (in which we are obliged to offer a specified number of hours and the member of staff is obliged to work them). We have reiterated the option for staff to move to fixed hours contracts and we have explored ways to adopt a model which makes these a structural feature of our rostering process in future. Indeed we have offered to migrate all staff to a form of fixed hours contract subject to obtaining legal advice. These negotiations have not reached a resolution, which is disappointing, but the management committee is making every effort to reach an understanding with staff and we are awaiting a response from the union."

[Penguin68]

Workers can go on strike without the involvement of a union BUT it's got to be legal.

The details are:- (from the link)

When industrial action is lawful

There must be:

a trade dispute (ie a dispute between you and your workers about employment-related issues)

a properly-conducted industrial action ballot

a written notice of industrial action sent to you

The industrial action must not:

be secondary action, ie taken by workers whose employer is not involved in the trade dispute

be in support of an employee dismissed for taking unofficial industrial action

promote closed-shop practices (ie when employers agree to employ only union members) or enforce trade union membership against non-union firms

involve unlawful picketing

This appears to have been a walk-out subsequent to dismissals without ballot or notice. However I believe that the management is still hoping to negotiate, and that there may be union (but which, I wonder?) involvement to assist a settlement. That is all to the good.

[rendelharris]

Thanks for the info BNG, clearly more nuanced than some have assumed and good to see that IH are recognising unions and offering fixed-hours contracts (and always have). Perhaps a certain poster above would like to withdraw their unfounded, ill-informed and malicious accusations?

[BrandNewGuy]

The full letter from the management team has now been put onto the official Ivy House Facebook page, so I think it's OK to copy it here:

"You may be aware, either from trying to visit or through social media, that The Ivy House was closed on Sunday 30th September.

For confidentiality reasons we aren't able to share the details of some staffing issues that came to our attention, but we want to say that we are now working with the staff involved to resolve them as soon as possible. As part of this process we engaged in a full day of discussions with staff and union representatives.

The matter of zero hours contracts has been raised in the course of these discussions and you may be concerned to know our position. The Ivy House has always offered fixed hours contracts (in which we are obliged to offer a specified number of hours and the member of staff is obliged to work them). We have reiterated the option for staff to move to fixed hours contracts and we have explored ways to adopt a model which makes these a structural feature of our rostering process in future. Indeed we have offered to migrate all staff to a form of fixed hours contract subject to obtaining legal advice. These negotiations have not reached a resolution, which is disappointing, but the management committee is making every effort to reach an understanding with staff and we are awaiting a response from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers? Union.

Another subject that?s come up is our recognition of staff unions. We?d like to confirm that our staff handbook already states that we welcome union membership.

We are still a relatively young project, and while the Ivy House has been successfully trading as a community pub for over five years now, we continue to encounter challenges such as this one, and to a certain extent we are still learning how to navigate them from the unique perspective of a social enterprise which should have both business responsibilities and community values for everyone involved.

We expect recent events to generate a lot of debate and you are of course welcome to contact us to share your views. You can do this by either commenting here or using the [email protected] email address.

If you?re holding an event with us then we?ll be in touch to confirm details. We'll let you know about any changes to opening hours via social media.

With kind regards,

All of us on the Ivy House Management Committee"

[peckman]

Fixed hours contracts work both ways. If you sign up to it you gotta work it . This isn't some faceless multi national exploiting it's workers. Go to any other pub and I'm sure the staff would be amazed and the terms of employment for sessional bar staff at the oh. Please give the committee a little credit

[Penguin68]

The position being taken by the Ivy House, at least publicly, seems entirely reasonable. They do welcome individual trades union membership, they seem open to issues around zero and fixed hours contracts. It should be remembered that zero hours contracts, which do not bind the employee to specific hours or days, are, at times, attractive to employees - who may be looking for casual work to backfill an uncertain career - typically but by no means exclusively those e.g who are actors). Unless they employ more staff than I think they do they are not obliged under law to enter into collective bargaining and recognition of a union for that purpose, but discussing issues with the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers? Union (an entirely appropriate union in this case) seems very positive. Unfortunately walk-outs and dismissals are normally a focus for bad blood, so coming out of this for them may not be easy.

[Sue]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for the info BNG, clearly more nuanced than

> some have assumed and good to see that IH are

> recognising unions and offering fixed-hours

> contracts (and always have). Perhaps a certain

> poster above would like to withdraw their

> unfounded, ill-informed and malicious accusations?

Well that certain poster, aka Dulwich Fox, has never withdrawn unfounded statements about me he posted on this forum, nor apologised, despite requests, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

As noted above, he has always appeared to wish The Ivy House to fail, right from the time the community shares were offered.

[Abe_froeman]

Sounds like the pub has some very ungrateful employees.

[DulwichFox]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Thanks for the info BNG, clearly more nuanced

> than

> > some have assumed and good to see that IH are

> > recognising unions and offering fixed-hours

> > contracts (and always have). Perhaps a certain

> > poster above would like to withdraw their

> > unfounded, ill-informed and malicious

> accusations?

>

>

> Well that certain poster, aka Dulwich Fox, has

> never withdrawn unfounded statements about me he

> posted on this forum, nor apologised, despite

> requests, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

>

> As noted above, he has always appeared to wish The

> Ivy House to fail, right from the time the

> community shares were offered.

Sue.. You have often remarked that Quote.. Your memory is 'Crap'

It was You that made unfounded statements about me when you suggested I had fallen out with Jaflong

over a conflict with Dulwich Tandoori. 2 or so years back.

At the time Jaflong had been scammed by a fake reporter claiming they would be putting a full page ad in a local paper. At the same time Dul Tan had a full page ad in the same paper.

Although the two restaurants had a bit of Argy Bargy between them, I was not involved and I certainly did not

have any conflict at the time with either restaurant.

That was the incident that you are wrongly remembering.

I have never 'Wished' the Ivy House to fail.

I don't have much interest in any venue that is not in East Dulwich.

I seldom venture out of the area in the evening.

I support my LOCAL establishments and businesses.

My recent comments were based on the input from the initial posts about sacked people and my concern for them.

Sue, you need to stop this personal vendetta with me when ever I post.

DulwichFox.

P.S. Thats all I will say on the matter.

[Sue]

I will continue this by private message.

It is you who is referring to the wrong incident, but I have no wish to inflict a lengthy post on anybody else.

[rendelharris]

Good, because you have in the past posted derogatory comments about the Ivy House and your post on here was ill-informed, malicious and untrue. You called for a boycott of a respected and well-loved venue without knowing anything about the case and simply making rubbish up to try and make the management look bad. It's pathetic. A lot of your posts are nonsense but when you're calling for action that could cause permanent harm to, or closure of, a community business when you have no idea at all what you're talking about, you really need to put a sock in it.

(ETA response to DF's very welcome offer to say no more)

[Sue]

You posted saying I was banned from Franklins, which was totally untrue. I have never been banned from anywhere in my life.

I asked you to delete the post. You didn't.

I asked you to apologise. You haven't.

I have had the owner of Franklins asking me who you are, because he saw the post in question.

And you have made frequent posts on the EDF suggesting that people should not buy community shares in The Ivy House because they would get little or no financial return on their investment.

ETA: Oh God sorry people that was supposed to be a private message, really sorry but now it's here I will leave it.

Profuse apologies for derailing an important thread.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rendelharris Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Thanks for the info BNG, clearly more nuanced

> > than

> > > some have assumed and good to see that IH are

> > > recognising unions and offering fixed-hours

> > > contracts (and always have). Perhaps a

> certain

> > > poster above would like to withdraw their

> > > unfounded, ill-informed and malicious

> > accusations?

> >

> >

> > Well that certain poster, aka Dulwich Fox, has

> > never withdrawn unfounded statements about me

> he

> > posted on this forum, nor apologised, despite

> > requests, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

> >

> > As noted above, he has always appeared to wish

> The

> > Ivy House to fail, right from the time the

> > community shares were offered.

>

> Sue.. You have often remarked that Quote.. Your

> memory is 'Crap'

>

> It was You that made unfounded statements about me

> when you suggested I had fallen out with Jaflong

> over a conflict with Dulwich Tandoori. 2 or so

> years back.

>

> At the time Jaflong had been scammed by a fake

> reporter claiming they would be putting a full

> page ad in a local paper. At the same time Dul Tan

> had a full page ad in the same paper.

>

> Although the two restaurants had a bit of Argy

> Bargy between them, I was not involved and I

> certainly did not

> have any conflict at the time with either

> restaurant.

>

> That was the incident that you are wrongly

> remembering.

>

>

> I have never 'Wished' the Ivy House to fail.

> I don't have much interest in any venue that is

> not in East Dulwich.

> I seldom venture out of the area in the evening.

> I support my LOCAL establishments and businesses.

>

> My recent comments were based on the input from

> the initial posts about sacked people and my

> concern for them.

> Sue, you need to stop this personal vendetta with

> me when ever I post.

>

>

> DulwichFox.

>

> P.S. Thats all I will say on the matter.