Andrew Hanson, head of communications at 2 Sisters Food Group, told FoodManufacture.co.uk: “These are localised site-by-site consultations. They are not group-wide.”
Sam Vickers, organising regional secretary at the Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union (BFAWU), told FoodManufacture.co.uk: “I represent three sites – Matthew Walker, Dunstons and Pennine Foods. They [2 Sisters] are trying to drive terms and conditions down at all of them.
“It’s going to backfire on them. People’s morale isn’t even low anymore. It’s gone.”
Vickers contacted FoodManufacture.co.uk after reading reports of 2 Sisters’ plans to reduce workers’ rights at Carlisle ready meals manufacturer Cavaghan & Gray, Fox’s Biscuits in West Batley, West Yorkshire, and its chicken plant in Scunthorpe.
'Twisted Sisters'
A dispute has also been ongoing at 2 Sisters’ pie and pizza manufacturing site RF Brookes in South Wigston, Leicestershire. Last month hundreds of RF Brookes’ staff went on strike in protest against proposed changes to redundancy packages and workers’ rights groups have dubbed the company “Twisted Sisters”.
Hanson said: “RF Brookes is a specific case being a heavily loss-making site, which we inherited as part of the Brookes Avana deal. We had to take tough action to give it a future.”
But Vickers said 2 Sisters was also in consultation with staff at Pennine Foods in West Yorkshire, which he claimed was profitable.
“We’ve got proof that Pennine’s making money,” said Vickers. “The company just doesn’t care about the workforce. They take £12M bonuses on the backs of people whose terms and conditions are being reduced.”
Of the 600 workers at Pennine Foods, 500 are union members and BFAWU is recommending that they reject 2 Sisters’ proposals to cut sick pay entitlement and pay for working shifts and overtime.
“We’re expecting a massive rejection,” said Vickers. “Then we’ll be able to sit down with the company and discuss things reasonably.”
Industrial action
Vickers said he would do his utmost to avoid industrial action.
“I’d like to sit down and talk,” he said. “Even if it takes me a year to come to a solution. A few years ago I’d have given a definite 'Yes' to industrial action, but things are different now.”
He said when 2 Sisters first took over Pennine Foods they gave the same presentation they’d given group-wide, which was all about looking after the customer.
“Normally there’d be something about the employees in there,” he said. “But not once did they mention the staff. They couldn’t give a monkey’s.”
“Working people are losing vast amounts of money under these proposals,” he said. “Some staff’s wages are being cut by as much as £78 a week and they’re on rubbish wages to start with.”
Hanson said: “It’s about making sure that our sites remain viable for the future. It’s managed on a site-by-site basis.”
Vickers said: “They want to be a £3bn company but they’re doing so by taking money from the workforce. Working people need to look around them and take stock of what’s happening.”
6 comments (Comments are now closed)
Where is common sense approach
Why do comments on subjects like this always degenerate to sniping remarks?
The two sides here need to listen to each other and then decide on their respective action. Let's not forget that principles do not pay mortgages or put food on the table or increase sales. We all face an uncertain future and before the positions of each party become entrenched maybe each should look outside at the current financial environment and how they can work together towards a more stable future.
In my experience a happy (but not subservient) workforce does more to improve productivity and efficiency than workers who feel they are not valued. On the other hand, a strong profitable company means career opportunities, job security, self esteem for its workers.
The answer to this issue is a compromise – is it not better to arrive at this position sooner rather than later?
Report abuse
Posted by John
13 August 2012 | 13h21
Scum Floats? Yawn
Method of cost reduction? Well, let's explore that. No business would reduce the workforce to a point it puts their reputation at stake – or would cause harm to the business. You speak with emotion, not information. So, we should let a business that turns over £2.3bn , employs circa 30,000 people to go abroad? Well Tim, I hope you don't go for political office! Why not explore 2 Sisters' reasons for taking the action it does?
Peter, 'Mr supplier', who says 'they impose unreasonable demands on us'. Well, like 2SFG they take a commercial stance and use it, like you do. If you do not like dealing with them, walk away, or use someone who can negotiate better than you. Let's explore your problem. A business uses economies of scale on its supply base to get better rates. Is this not standard? I would rather be paid every 60 days a rate over ex amount of years, than no rate at all. Have a think!
Report abuse
Posted by Simon
07 August 2012 | 23h55
Scum floats
While the future of 2 Sisters is in the balance, the management team are hell-bent on reducing cost. While this is an admirable motivation, the method of cost reduction is of issue here. Typically the 'local' workforce are the easiest target and with 'the jobs market an issue' who will fight back? Sorry to disagree with Simon the car fanatic (comment 2). I do feel that they would be indirectly doing the country a favour by leaving. Lets help them go …
Report abuse
Posted by Tim
06 August 2012 | 13h21
You should try supplying2 Sisters!
We are a supplier to the two Sisters group. They impose unreasonable demands on us and don't pay their bills on time. The individual companies within the group are progressive and nice people to deal with, the problem is the head office. It is like a leach on these companies and the group's suppliers, all they do is take. It makes it difficult to give a good service and supply. We are after all talking about our food here. Two Sisters' head office needs to be more honourable!
Report abuse
Posted by Peter David
03 August 2012 | 18h05
In the know!
Hmm … What if 2 Sisters took its work out of the country like pretty much most food manufacturers have? Have you ever thought they do this to keep margins low? To keep what they have – let alone win more? I suspect not. You are being similar to the unions, which look in car parks for the cars directors drive rather than look at the market place they are in, and what it takes to remain in there. Grow up!
Report abuse
Posted by Post by Simon
01 August 2012 | 21h04
Screwing the workforce isn't a good business model!
Try being a decent employer and hold the retailers to account if they take products produced by unfairly exploited workers. We all need to wake up to the cost of cheap goods and high profits. Someone gets screwed and it is never the rich and powerful!
Report abuse
Posted by Simon
31 July 2012 | 01h05
Read all comments (6)