CAMPAIGN Anti-union firms
When firms try to union-bust Unite says no way
Jones Engineering won’t have been sorry to bid farewell to 2025, which saw the Dublin-based construction company forced to back down in the courts while facing protests by Unite members throughout Ireland, Britain and Europe.
Unite’s dispute with Jones goes back to 2023, when our members took industrial action to reinstate the first paid hour of travel time in the mechanical sector.
‘‘
Unite will do whatever it takes to vindicate our members’ right to organise and take action in defence of their terms and conditions
Sharon Graham, Unite general secretary
Travel time had been cut as an ostensibly ‘temporary measure’ in 2011 following the financial crash.
With employers refusing to come to the table and negotiate the reinstatement of travel time, it became clear that this temporary cut would become permanent, unless workers took industrial action – and that’s just what Unite members voted to do.
Jones responded by seeking a court injunction to halt the strike action. The Irish Supreme Court subsequently issued a landmark ruling clarifying the protected right to strike in Ireland.
But that didn’t deter Jones from pursuing punitive legal actions not only against our union, but – in an unprecedented move – against named Unite reps.
Unite regional officer James McCabe takes up the story. “Three Unite shop
10 unite buildingWORKER Spring 2026
stewards suddenly found themselves dragged before the courts because they had stepped up to represent workers. That was a clear case of attempted union-busting, and there was no way we were going to let it go”.
As well as defending our reps in the courts, Unite, with the support of the global Building and Woodworkers International Federation (BWI) – filed a complaint with the OECD against Jones Engineering and its US-based owner Cathexis.
The complaint notes that Jones’ decision to target union shop stewards is in breach of the OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct – and in August 2025 the OECD found that our complaint merited further consideration.
The OECD finding came after Jones, (having previously lost the landmark Supreme Court case,) was forced to
‘‘
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
