Marks & Spencer accuses BemroseBooth of 'misleading workforce'

Retail giant Marks & Spencer (M&S) has refuted suggestions that it was in any way responsible for the closure of BemroseBooth's Derby sites, following allegations it was partly to blame for the company's problems.

Unite regional officer Kathy Brooks claimed BemroseBooth chief executive Jean-Paul Ansel had blamed the closures on a number of factors, including M&S's decision to stop dealing with the company.

However, M&S said BemroseBooth came to this decision by itself and that it was in no way dependent on the M&S contract, which it said had been due to run until September 2011.

A spokeswoman for M&S said BemroseBooth was "misleading its workforce by implying that M&S was part of its decision".

She said: "We were approached only last week with an invitation to extend the contract – not with BemroseBooth – but with its existing management team trading as a new company.

"Given the potential impact on its employees and suppliers, this was not something with which we were comfortable. It is very regrettable for its workforce that it has now reached this decision."

Ansel said that the company "disagreed" with M&S's allegations.

According to Companies House, a new company, Bemrosebooth Systems, was created on 8 June with Ansel and AIAC's Leonard Levie listed as directors.

Ansel told PrintWeek on Monday that BemroseBooth was being "restructured" to make it profitable, but declined to comment on the formation of the new company. He could not be reached following M&S's statement.

BemroseBooth filed a notice of intent to appoint an administrator at the High Court of Justice on 16 June, suggesting it could be on the verge of administration.

Some 120 staff were made redundant from its Derby plant on 21 June, 40 from its Derby-based head office and 26 from its Hull site yesterday.

Insolvency practioner David Rubin & Partners confirmed on 18 June that it had been approached by the company.

However, David Rubin & Partners senior manager David Stephenson told PrintWeek yesterday (22 June) that the company was not yet in administration and an insolvency firm had not been appointed as administrator.