Construction Workers Win Payouts For 'blacklisting'

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36242312

Justice at last.

"Howard Beckett, the union's legal services director, said the companies involved "had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make unprecedented admissions of guilt" in October last year"

Why is that cases like this take so long to be settled ?

[youngmafbog]

I guess it is the problem of proving it.

Whilst I agree on some of the things it says : In some cases, the blacklist included details of worker's political views, competence, and trade union activities

Surely blacklisting because someone is incompetent on a building site is very sensible for the safety of all if nothing else. Also if trade union activities are carried out during the working day then that too may be a problem.

[mikey4444]

YMB....these men were not blacklisted because they were in incompetent, but because they dared organise and recruit for their Unions.

" But it [ the Construction Industry ] accepts that for decades firms were involved in a secret vetting system which infringed workers' rights to confidentiality, privacy, reputation and data protection"

The Industry is banged to rights it would seem....what a pity it has taken so long for the Industry to admit that they were wrong.

[Peter Pedant]

the defendants think they have a case ?
the plaintiffs are too greedy ?

Hillsborough - the police lawyers 2015-6 were running a line that the crowds were passed when that had been laid to rest in erm er 1989....
But the public was paying the legal bill for that

One side thinks they must do it anywa7 ?
McLibel case where McDonalds felt obliged to spend £10m irrecvoerably against four defendant who had libelled them
http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

one of the defendants clearly doesnt learn and surfaces again ten years later as one of the women who bore children to police spies when they were spying on far left organisations

One side said - we have a right to do this ?
http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2001/december/r-on-the-application-of-white-v-law-society

there are a few reasons to be starting with ?

In this case I think the blacklisters said they owed no duty to the people they had unlawfully blacklisted ....

[Peter Pedant]

// Surely blacklisting because someone is incompetent on a building site is very sensible for the safety of all if nothing else.//

nope read the article and you will find they were blacklisted unlawfully against the data protection act for the union activities

Initially denied they held the files and were raided eventually ( after a few years ) by the Info Commissioner

// Also if trade union activities are carried out during the working day then that too may be a problem. //
come on ! youre making this up as you go along
this is a guaranteed right under the employment acts

[Peter Pedant]

Oh, right mikey
the case was against the users of the blacklist
the blacklist company which held the files must have gone under

and the amount claimed £75m would make anyone defend it

I am not certain this was an insured loss
I can imagine a lot of insurance companies would say
" you did what ? well you are certainly not covered for that "

[youngmafbog]

Mickey, from your link:
In some cases, the blacklist included details of worker's political views, competence, and trade union activities.

Not me it was the report that said competence. I still maintain that there should not be a problem in listing incompetent people.

[malagabob]

Having worked in the construction industry for many years it was common knowledge there was a "blacklist".Many of the firms that had access to this list were multi million pound companies.

[mikey4444]

YMB....I can't disagree with you over incompetency.

But these companies have lost their case and have now admitted that they were wrong, and not before long.