How Fergie and Dire Straits were part of a super-union’s super-weapons
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 Sir 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.”
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 executives.
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 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 one of the tycoon’s sons played for. It also proposed “opening dialogue” with the running 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”.
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 focused 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.
“All these proposed actions would have been perfectly lawful. None, in the event, were undertaken.”
Ineos declined to comment.