THE Unite trade union considered targeting the family and neighbours of the owner of the Grangemouth oil refinery during the bitter industrial dispute in 2013, leaked documents reveal.
Options included opening a “dialogue” with Ineos boss Jim Ratcliffe’s first wife, organising demos outside his son’s rugby team and mounting a protest at his new partner’s running club.
The union also proposed contacting Dire Straits guitarist Mark Knopfler – described in the dossier as Ratcliffe’s neighbour – as well as Manchester United legend Alex Ferguson as the tycoon was a club supporter.
The “leverage” tactics were part of a six-pronged strategy of direct action that included Ineos lenders, future business partners and customers.
A spokesman for Len McCluskey, who is seeking re-election as Unite general secretary, declined to comment.
However, a source on the campaign of Gerard Coyne, who is challenging McCluskey for the top job, said: "Len McCluskey's handling of the Ineos dispute was a disaster."
Picture: McCluskey
In 2013, Unite’s attempt at influencing a Labour selection contest in Falkirk snowballed into one of the biggest industrial disputes in decades.
Ineos, which owns the sprawling oil refinery and petrochemical plant at Grangemouth, believed union representative Stephen Deans had been carrying out Labour party business on company time and suspended him.
Unite members voted for strike action and even staged “leverage” demonstrations outside the homes of company executive.
Ineos responded by threatening to close the petrochemical side of the plant, an outcome that would have blown a hole in the Scottish economy and led to the loss of hundreds of jobs. In the end, the company backed away from closure, but only after securing workforce pension cuts and curbs on trade union activity.
The outcome was seen as a humiliation for McCluskey, who had a high profile role during the dispute, and has been used by the Coyne campaign during the general secretary contest.
The Sunday Herald can reveal that in autumn 2013 – a key point in the row – Unite produced a 211-page “draft leverage” document outlining options for disrupting the company.
Produced by the union’s “national organising and leverage department”, the dossier included open-source information on Ratcliffe’s marital status, children and outside interests. It stated that he was separated from his wife Amanda but had a new partner and lived in Hampshire close to Knopfler.
The document noted: “Jim Ratcliffe is known to be a very private person. Any actions/demonstrations that could disrupt his personal equilibrium could be very useful.”
According to the report, “actions” including “opening dialogue” with the then Mrs Ratcliffe and the rugby club, which the union claimed that one of the tycoon’s sons played for. It also proposed “opening dialogue” with the club said to be used by his new partner, as well as contacting his celebrity neighbours.
The same course of action was flagged up for Ferguson and his successor, David Moyes, and a “lawful” demonstration was suggested for outside Manchester United’s stadium.
However, the action considered for Ratcliffe was only a tiny part of the overall leverage strategy.
Part one focused on “industrial and supply chain disruption”, which involved interruptions at other Ineos sites in the UK and “uncertainty” at European petrochemical and storage facilities.
Section two was on “debt and lenders” and stated that the banks and investment funds linked to Ineos were a “critical campaign target”.
It noted: “A core component of the Ineos business model is attracting premium levels of government investment. This strategy can potentially be fatally undermined by the exposure of the Ineos accounting and tax regime.”
Strand three – “strategy and lobbying leverage” – focused on the company’s search for alternative reserves, such as shale gas. The document highlighted possible actions such as preventing new business deals in “purchase, sale or partnerships”.
Unite also had a strategy for “co-dependents leverage”, which meant targeting the firm’s commercial partners in joint ventures, such as Shell.
The fifth part was for Ineos customers and the final strand was on types of leverage considered for Ratcliffe personally.
A Unite spokesman said: “This is living in the past. Unite is totally focussed on the jobs and future of our members and the Ineos site today. We are working hard to ensure that this workforce has the positive future that they deserve and their unions are striving to deliver.
“Unite makes no apology for exploring all options to defend its members, their communities and the Scottish economy from the depredations of an irresponsible employer. Others may prefer docile trade unionism, but Unite will never be that union.
“All these proposed actions would have been perfectly lawful. None, in the event, were undertaken.”
Ineos declined to comment.
Meanwhile, the general secretary contest ends this week, in what has been a bitter election to secure the top job at Unite.
Allthough three candidates are vying to become the next general secretary, the election is seen as a two-horse race between McCluskey and Coyne.
The race is also being viewed as a proxy battle for the future of Labour, as McCluskey, who is standing again, is a staunch supporter of Jeremy Corbyn while Coyne is a moderate.
On his campaign website, McCluskey said: "Under my leadership, Unite is leading the fight to rebuild our economy to place decent, secure, well-paid jobs and a future for our children at its heart."
A Coyne campaign source said: "The election closes this week and all the signs are it is on a knife-edge. If people want change they can still vote for it but they must put a first class stamp on their envelope and get it in the post straight away."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel