Paper company defends its actions as mill workers are laid off

Up to 40 employees of Garnett's are believed to have been told to stay at home from last Monday for at least one week - and up to three months.

The news coincides with the firm confirming that several of its foremen and around five office staff have taken voluntary redundancy.

Last week a letter was sent to workers stating that: "Due to circumstances outside the control of the company it is regretfully necessary to have to lay you off commencing Monday, February 20.

"The 'lay-off' period will be for at least one week. You may be called in at any time during this or any other period if the situation changes.

"...You are entitled to a statutory guaranteed payment that currently stands at £18.90 per day for each day you are laid off up to a maximum of five days in any three month period.

"For any day which you are laid off and are not eligible to a guaranteed payment you may be entitled to state benefits."

That means employees who are laid off beyond this week won't receive any pay until they are called back to work.

But Garnett's Managing Director Cliff Barry insists the lay-off is par for the course for the industry, and the redundancies are merely the latest in a previously announced programme.

He said: "This is not a new issue for the company.

"Unfortunately in the paper industry sometimes you take 'downtime' like we're doing now, that happens.

"Our company has taken down-time in the past as have many other companies in our industry.

"We have to take those decisions that best protect the long-term interests of the company and its employees.

"A lack of orders is part of the reason for it and part of it is also about efficiency in the way we run the business.

"The supervisors were included in the 'pot' when we announced the whole redundancy process earlier.

"The programme we have implemented is a rolling process with each position being dealt with as it arises.

Unfortunately the law requires us to offer redundancy to any person where there is a fundamental change in their job duties which compounds the situation."

As for how long it would be until staff were called back, he said: "At the moment, I'm looking at next week but second guessing these things is asking for trouble, so we always deal with it on a day to day basis."

One worker, however, who asked not to be identified, fears the worst.

He said: "About half of us have been laid off, they have said for at least a week but I think it's more likely to be a couple of months or more.

"There's not enough work, we've no work to do and no paper to machine any more.

"I've seen this coming over the last few weeks and the paper dwindle down to nothing.

"After five days they don't have to pay us anything for up to three months.

"And in the past week they've made several more redundancies.

"So we just see this as virtually the end. I've got no job to go to and I don't expect to be called back to Garnett's again."

Otley town councillors, meanwhile, have said threats of redundancies should not force an early decision on the riverside redevelopment of the Garnett's site.

And at its Monday meeting, the Environmental and Economic Development Committee expressed concern for the workers and criticised management for both de-recognising unions and threatening job losses unless planning permission was given for its redevelopment.

Councillor Kevin Cooney said: "There have been numerous redundancies and workers are suffering lower wages because the jobs are different. Some redundancy payments were delayed for six months making it very difficult for people.

"More recently there have been threats of further job losses because of planning delays. It is a serious blow to the work force."

Councillor John Eveleigh said: "One thing that is regrettable is the alleged attitude of the management. To have trade unions de-recognised in 2006 is highly regrettable.

"I do recognise that Gar-nett's are operating in a cut throat business, but it is regrettable that people in this town are losing jobs and do not have the proper representation."

Councillor Jim Spencer said: "I am beginning to become concerned about the whole thing.

"The plans committee at Leeds are under pressure to get things approved quickly and I feel we are being skilfully manoeuvred into making a quick decision."

Coun Spencer said there were elements of the scheme the town council was pressing for, such as an access road through the proposed development taking traffic out of the town centre and onto Pool Road.

"We should stick to our guns and not agree until it is right because the town is going to have to live with it."