WORKERS at one of the area's largest companies, Whitbread, could soon be voting for strike action.
It follows a row between a union and management over a contract company operating at the Samlesbury site.
Kammac has rented space at the brewery since March last year where workers package cans for supermarkets.
The GMB union at Whitbread says it is furious management has taken away a guarantee that Kammac workers would never be given their jobs.
It also claims Kammac pays its staff just £2.50-an-hour, which it says is "exploitative."
One worker said: "We're really surprised that an employer like Whitbread can let a company like this operate.
"Whitbread brought in Kammac as a cost-cutting measure and management gave us a guarantee that our jobs were safe and they would not be given to Kammac workers.
"Now that's been taken away a lot of people are frightened for their futures. Kammac has taken over jobs at another brewery it operated at."
Whitbread employs 634 staff at the site. It brought in Skelmersdale-based Kammac to cut down on the high transport costs involved in sending out beer for packaging and then returning it to East Lancashire for distribution.
Kammac site manager Trevor Hackett said he was mystified by the allegations.
He said: "Nobody has approached me to voice any concerns but I have seen leaflets being circulated by the union saying something about Kammac taking over other jobs.
"We're a secondary packaging firm who operate at a number of firms, including Typhoo and Radion. What other jobs would we want to take over at Whitbread?
"To say that we pay our workers £2.50 an hour is an error. It may have been at that level when we moved here but that's not the case now.
"I am surprised nobody has approached Kammac ."
A spokesman for Whitbread said: "We can confirm that following a show of hands by employees at our Samlesbury site it has been agreed that a formal vote will take place to deal with whether or not to proceed with industrial action.
"We are still waiting to find out the details of the resolution on which they are meaning to vote but we are confident that their concerns are unfounded."
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article