I have today been compared to one of my favourite TV characters for reporting a decision of our Branch Convenors Committee not to panic about "swine 'flu'".
Having spent the afternoon defending a UNISON member facing dismissal under the sickness procedure I cannot help feeling that, beyond the advice on basic hygiene and common sense which is all that can really be said about a 'flu' pandemic, there is an issue in relation to absence management which the trade unions need to pick up on.
Since one of the KPIs on which our local government employers are measured relates to levels of sickness absence there is constant pressure to reduce this. However, rather than focus on the progressive means to reduce sickness absence - by focusing on employee wellbeing and prevention of ill health - many managers are trained to prefer a punitive approach.
With the Government encouraging people to stay away from work if they think they have "swine 'flu'" we need to be pressing employers not to take such absence into account against employees facing action under sickness or absence management procedures. We don't want people coming into work ill because they are afraid their absence is being monitored and that they could face dismissal for sickness.
Any readers of this blog at LGE - please take note!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
On the picket line
I was pleased to be able to spend some time with the pickets at London Metropolitan University this morning.
I spent an hour outside Central House and in that time just a couple of strikebreakers went in, two postal deliveries were turned away - and a number of passers by asked for directions!
The joint official strike action by Unison and UCU members is a very necessary response to the massive job cuts threatened because of past mismanagement and the continuing refusal of the Higher Education Funding Council to prevent staff and students paying for errors for which they are not responsible.
Branch duties will keep me away from the lunchtime rally - noon outside Central House.However it looks likely that there will need to be further action to protect jobs and services at London Met - check out the joint union Blog for regular updates.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Support London Met strikers
I have received this message on behalf of workers at London Metropolitan University;
Dear fellow trade unionists,
This is to both update you on the situation at London Metropolitan University and to thank you for the many messages of support and help offered to our campaign over the last few months.
As you know, London Met UCU and London Met Unison have been conducting a major campaign to oppose our management's insistence on the loss of 550 FTE posts - which may result in up to 800 job losses (1/4 of our entire workforce). Both unions have won overwhelming endorsement for industrial action in recent ballots, and UCU took an initial day's strike action in May. However, as the threat of job cuts (including compulsory redundancies currently scheduled for the end of July) has so far not been lifted, we have decided we now need to escalate our action.
To that end we shall initially be taking a joint UCU/Unison university-wide one day strike next Tuesday (July 14th).
JOINT UCU/UNISON STRIKE – TUESDAY 14TH JULY (BASTILLE DAY)
Our picket lines will commence at 8am at each of our main campus buildings in Holloway Road, Moorgate, Aldgate East, and Whitechapel (see the blog for details).
In addition we will be holding a mass rally from 12-1pm outside our Central House Building (just opposite Aldgate East tube on the District line), before sending a delegation to the Dept of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), in Victoria (opposite St James Park tube) to hand-in a 3,500+ petition, demanding a full public inquiry and a halt to the job cuts at London Met, to Peter Mandleson.
Please make every effort to join us in the morning on our picket lines and to send delegations (and banners) from your branches to our rally in the afternoon. Further updates will be posted on our blog: http://savelondonmetuni.blogspot.com.
We believe that the situation at London Met, though very specific on the one-hand re the serious financial mismanagement of our institution, is also far too generic re the response of university/college management generally to attack staff, students, and the very education ideals we believe in, to pay for either their own, or Government induced, financial crisis, or to use the threat of financial crisis to remould the shape of education institutions to the dictates of what can best be described as the failed neo-liberal market model of education. We are only the tip of the iceberg, as the threat to jobs at 100+ institutions across both FE and HE indicates. This is therefore not simply our fight, but one of the first salvos in a much bigger fight for the sort of education system that all of us - students, staff, community, deserve.
Please join us.
In Solidarity.
Mark...
Mark Campbell
UCU Co-ordinating Committee - London Metropolitan University
UCU National Executive
Dear fellow trade unionists,
This is to both update you on the situation at London Metropolitan University and to thank you for the many messages of support and help offered to our campaign over the last few months.
As you know, London Met UCU and London Met Unison have been conducting a major campaign to oppose our management's insistence on the loss of 550 FTE posts - which may result in up to 800 job losses (1/4 of our entire workforce). Both unions have won overwhelming endorsement for industrial action in recent ballots, and UCU took an initial day's strike action in May. However, as the threat of job cuts (including compulsory redundancies currently scheduled for the end of July) has so far not been lifted, we have decided we now need to escalate our action.
To that end we shall initially be taking a joint UCU/Unison university-wide one day strike next Tuesday (July 14th).
JOINT UCU/UNISON STRIKE – TUESDAY 14TH JULY (BASTILLE DAY)
Our picket lines will commence at 8am at each of our main campus buildings in Holloway Road, Moorgate, Aldgate East, and Whitechapel (see the blog for details).
In addition we will be holding a mass rally from 12-1pm outside our Central House Building (just opposite Aldgate East tube on the District line), before sending a delegation to the Dept of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), in Victoria (opposite St James Park tube) to hand-in a 3,500+ petition, demanding a full public inquiry and a halt to the job cuts at London Met, to Peter Mandleson.
Please make every effort to join us in the morning on our picket lines and to send delegations (and banners) from your branches to our rally in the afternoon. Further updates will be posted on our blog: http://savelondonmetuni.blogspot.com.
We believe that the situation at London Met, though very specific on the one-hand re the serious financial mismanagement of our institution, is also far too generic re the response of university/college management generally to attack staff, students, and the very education ideals we believe in, to pay for either their own, or Government induced, financial crisis, or to use the threat of financial crisis to remould the shape of education institutions to the dictates of what can best be described as the failed neo-liberal market model of education. We are only the tip of the iceberg, as the threat to jobs at 100+ institutions across both FE and HE indicates. This is therefore not simply our fight, but one of the first salvos in a much bigger fight for the sort of education system that all of us - students, staff, community, deserve.
Please join us.
In Solidarity.
Mark...
Mark Campbell
UCU Co-ordinating Committee - London Metropolitan University
UCU National Executive
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Unbearable Lightness of the National Labour Link Forum
A well deserved hat tip to MJ at Union Futures for publishing a report from last weekend’s UNISON National Labour Link forum which provides some useful detail and analysis (in contrast to reporting elsewhere).
What concerned me when I read other, somewhat Panglossian, online reports is reinforced now that a sober assessment is available – it appears that the Damascene conversion of our General Secretary to the position of the left in the Union about the Labour Link has yet to be followed through in any meaningful way.
UNISON Labour Link is not widely considered to be the most dynamic and effective part of our trade union, but the failure effectively and urgently to engage with the challenge set by the General Secretary’s Conference speech sets a new standard of inadequacy.
There are people trying to fight for our policies in and with the Labour Party. If all we are doing is inviting a few Ministers to a Forum meeting so we can congratulate ourselves for having asked them some difficult questions then we are making ourselves irrelevant to that fight.
Which is a shame.
What concerned me when I read other, somewhat Panglossian, online reports is reinforced now that a sober assessment is available – it appears that the Damascene conversion of our General Secretary to the position of the left in the Union about the Labour Link has yet to be followed through in any meaningful way.
UNISON Labour Link is not widely considered to be the most dynamic and effective part of our trade union, but the failure effectively and urgently to engage with the challenge set by the General Secretary’s Conference speech sets a new standard of inadequacy.
There are people trying to fight for our policies in and with the Labour Party. If all we are doing is inviting a few Ministers to a Forum meeting so we can congratulate ourselves for having asked them some difficult questions then we are making ourselves irrelevant to that fight.
Which is a shame.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A pedant writes...
As I explained earlier, I think that UNISON will be making a mistake if we fail to implement clear Conference policy in respect of our submissions to the 2009 TUC Congress.
I have therefore written to the General Secretary as follows (and await comments along the lines of the anatomical references offered to me in respect of previous correspondence on another matter by a senior officer);
“National Delegate Conference, in passing Composite D took a clear decision that UNISON should "bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector."
Under Rule D.1.1 "The supreme government of the Union shall be vested in the National Delegate Conference." However, following Thursday's TUC delegation meeting the Union appears set to fail to implement this clear Conference decision.
The power to affiliate to the TUC and to determine arrangements for the delegation is given to the NEC by Rule D.2.9.7 and, in accordance with the preamble of Rule D.2.9 this is "part of" the general power of the NEC given by Rule D.2.1. This in turn is subject to the caveat that the NEC "shall not do anything that is inconsistent with... ...the policy of the Union as laid down at National Delegate Conference."
There is no Rule which permits the NEC to disregard, or to take into account only to a limited extent, Conference decisions about which the NEC itself had previously expressed some "qualification." The TUC Delegation does not itself have any particular standing under Rule and it must therefore operate in accordance with the Rule Book and hence the powers of the NEC(which is why the NEC was able, last year, to agree changes to the arrangements whereby previously individual members of the delegation had been able to table motions for discussion).
I am therefore writing to you, with copies to the President and to the Chair and Director of Policy, as a member of the NEC (sharing responsibility to see that the Union abides by Conference decisions) to request that you take urgent and appropriate action to avoid our acting in a manner which would be inconsistent with the policy of the Union laid down by National Delegate Conference 2009 when it agreed Composite D.
I look forward to hearing from you or from another appropriate colleague.”
Perhaps some other trade union will put a motion on the TUC agenda calling for a united fight to defend pensions across the private and public sectors, and UNISON can become part of a composite by way of an amendment, but strictly speaking we will have failed to implement Conference policy.
(Update on Sunday 12 July – check out this cogent argument for the defence of defined benefit pension schemes across the private and public sectors over at Ian’s UNITE Site.)
I have therefore written to the General Secretary as follows (and await comments along the lines of the anatomical references offered to me in respect of previous correspondence on another matter by a senior officer);
“National Delegate Conference, in passing Composite D took a clear decision that UNISON should "bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector."
Under Rule D.1.1 "The supreme government of the Union shall be vested in the National Delegate Conference." However, following Thursday's TUC delegation meeting the Union appears set to fail to implement this clear Conference decision.
The power to affiliate to the TUC and to determine arrangements for the delegation is given to the NEC by Rule D.2.9.7 and, in accordance with the preamble of Rule D.2.9 this is "part of" the general power of the NEC given by Rule D.2.1. This in turn is subject to the caveat that the NEC "shall not do anything that is inconsistent with... ...the policy of the Union as laid down at National Delegate Conference."
There is no Rule which permits the NEC to disregard, or to take into account only to a limited extent, Conference decisions about which the NEC itself had previously expressed some "qualification." The TUC Delegation does not itself have any particular standing under Rule and it must therefore operate in accordance with the Rule Book and hence the powers of the NEC(which is why the NEC was able, last year, to agree changes to the arrangements whereby previously individual members of the delegation had been able to table motions for discussion).
I am therefore writing to you, with copies to the President and to the Chair and Director of Policy, as a member of the NEC (sharing responsibility to see that the Union abides by Conference decisions) to request that you take urgent and appropriate action to avoid our acting in a manner which would be inconsistent with the policy of the Union laid down by National Delegate Conference 2009 when it agreed Composite D.
I look forward to hearing from you or from another appropriate colleague.”
Perhaps some other trade union will put a motion on the TUC agenda calling for a united fight to defend pensions across the private and public sectors, and UNISON can become part of a composite by way of an amendment, but strictly speaking we will have failed to implement Conference policy.
(Update on Sunday 12 July – check out this cogent argument for the defence of defined benefit pension schemes across the private and public sectors over at Ian’s UNITE Site.)
It's not a great game...
At the height of the power of the British Empire, our army engaged in years of fighting in Central Asia, including Afghanistan in what was known at the time as the “Great Game”.
Nowadays only some deluded sections of the British ruling class (and their New Labour hangers on) believe that this country is still really a Great Power.
Because of this delusion 184 British troops have died in Afghanistan.
These (mostly) young working class men could be alive now, living and working in this country.
UNISON supports the Stop the War Coalition and I am glad that Stop the War are organising a timely protest on Monday 13 July (at Downing Street at 5pm) to call for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.
When the National Labour Link Committee considers the criteria by which we will decide which politicians our Union will support in future I hope that we will take into account whether they are among those who have opposed such military adventures.
(Update – shortly after first posting this I find that I am in agreement with my fellow Branch Secretary.)
(Further update - sign the petition to bring the troops home!)
Nowadays only some deluded sections of the British ruling class (and their New Labour hangers on) believe that this country is still really a Great Power.
Because of this delusion 184 British troops have died in Afghanistan.
These (mostly) young working class men could be alive now, living and working in this country.
UNISON supports the Stop the War Coalition and I am glad that Stop the War are organising a timely protest on Monday 13 July (at Downing Street at 5pm) to call for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.
When the National Labour Link Committee considers the criteria by which we will decide which politicians our Union will support in future I hope that we will take into account whether they are among those who have opposed such military adventures.
(Update – shortly after first posting this I find that I am in agreement with my fellow Branch Secretary.)
(Further update - sign the petition to bring the troops home!)
Friday, July 10, 2009
If the Environment Agency can offer 2% so can the Local Government Association
UNISON members in the Environment Agency are being recommended to accept a 2% pay increase, as reported in a joint bulletin;.
“At a special meeting of the National Negotiating Group held on 7 July 2009 negotiations of the terms of this year’s pay settlement resumed. At the end of the session the management team presented their final offer including some significant improvements secured by the trade unions during the negotiations.
The key elements are as follows:
A 2% increase to all pay scales and allowances.
An increase to standby allowance from £87.15 to £120 per week. (37.7% increase)
A new Disturbance Allowance that provides additional travel assistance for three years.”
In the mean time the Local Government pay negotiations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are going nowhere fast, as reported in the latest bulletin;
“There has still been no response from the LGA to the proposals arising from the talks held on 21 May. In light of this, a meeting of the Joint NJC Trade Union Side has been arranged for 16 July to discuss the next steps. The UNISON NJC Committee will have a short meeting beforehand. Our understanding is that the four political groupings on the LGA have failed to reach agreement between themselves on our proposals.”
Most local authorities have set aside enough in their budgets for the current year to afford a settlement at the level being recommended to members employed by the Environment Agency (which is still below the level of the Government’s favoured measure of inflation the Consumer Prices Index in April), yet the Tory controlled employers are unwilling at present to increase an offer of 0.5%
Holding down the pay of low paid local government workers will worsen the effects of the current recession by restraining spending power in local communities – so much for the “recession support for Councils” from the Local Government Association!
“At a special meeting of the National Negotiating Group held on 7 July 2009 negotiations of the terms of this year’s pay settlement resumed. At the end of the session the management team presented their final offer including some significant improvements secured by the trade unions during the negotiations.
The key elements are as follows:
A 2% increase to all pay scales and allowances.
An increase to standby allowance from £87.15 to £120 per week. (37.7% increase)
A new Disturbance Allowance that provides additional travel assistance for three years.”
In the mean time the Local Government pay negotiations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are going nowhere fast, as reported in the latest bulletin;
“There has still been no response from the LGA to the proposals arising from the talks held on 21 May. In light of this, a meeting of the Joint NJC Trade Union Side has been arranged for 16 July to discuss the next steps. The UNISON NJC Committee will have a short meeting beforehand. Our understanding is that the four political groupings on the LGA have failed to reach agreement between themselves on our proposals.”
Most local authorities have set aside enough in their budgets for the current year to afford a settlement at the level being recommended to members employed by the Environment Agency (which is still below the level of the Government’s favoured measure of inflation the Consumer Prices Index in April), yet the Tory controlled employers are unwilling at present to increase an offer of 0.5%
Holding down the pay of low paid local government workers will worsen the effects of the current recession by restraining spending power in local communities – so much for the “recession support for Councils” from the Local Government Association!
TUC delegation meeting fails to implement Conference policy
In the final thrilling installment from the drafting of my NEC report we reach yesterday afternoon's TUC delegation meeting...
The NEC meeting was followed by a meeting of the TUC delegation which I attended as an NEC member.
The delegation meeting had to choose three motions to submit to the TUC. In line with what was described as “the way we have always done things” (but was in fact in line with decisions taken only last year) the delegation meeting was presented with three draft motions from which to choose any three.
Formally these motions came from the Presidential Team (who had been elected the previous day) in consultation with the Chair of the Policy Committee (who had also been elected the previous day). In practice they had been drafted by officers.
Delegates queried the arrangements for submission of motions and were assured that all the “constituent bodies” of the TUC delegation (Regions, Service Groups, Self-Organised Groups etc.) had received adequate notice to submit either motions or ideas for motions and that where this had been done these had been taken into account.
The motions dealt with defending the NHS, fighting the BNP and public services.
The first motion “Defending Our NHS” calls for an end to privatisation in the Health Service and is likely to be the heart of one of the major composite motions at this year's Trades Union Congress.
The second motion “Fighting the BNP and Far Right” concentrates on a number of specific action points instructing the General Council on how to assist trade unions in responding to the rise of the far right. Delegates successfully proposed amendments to this motion from the floor in order to add a reference to “Unite Against Fascism” alongside “Searchlight.” Again I am sure that other trade unions will submit motions on this topic in the light of the results of the European elections and the confusion created by the new Employment Act and that this motion will become part of a Composite.
The third motion “Public Services and the Economy” deals with the need to protect public services in a recession. This gave rise to some debate as (of the three motions before the meeting) this was the only one in which any attempt could be made to implement a specific decision of our National Delegate Conference.
When this year's National Delegate Conference agreed Composite D “Defending UNISON Members' Pension Schemes” it took a specific decision as follows;
“UNISON to bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector.”
I argued that the Union should comply with this Conference decision and that, if the only way to do this was to add this demand into the motion on public services and the economy then this is what should have been done (making compensatory cuts elsewhere in the motion to comply with the TUC's stringent 250 word limit).
Both before and during the meeting it was pointed out to me (in respect of Composite D at National Delegate Conference) that “this had been our qualification” when the policy of the NEC on this motion had been agreed as “support with qualifications”. This laughable argument (in response to which I confess to having laughed) reflects a misunderstanding which is widespread at Mabledon Place, where there appears to be a view that if Conference passes a policy which the NEC has “supported with qualifications” then the NEC is somehow entitled to implement the Conference decision only in part because of those “qualifications”. There is no basis in Rule for this view.
I believe that the failure of UNISON to implement the policy of our Conference to “bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector” is both constitutionally and politically mistaken. If NEC colleagues believe that it is wrong for Conference to “tie the hands” of the TUC delegation with specific instructions about the submission of motions to the TUC then the NEC should either propose amendments or speak against such proposals. Once Conference has taken a decision, whether it was supported or opposed by the NEC (and regardless of any “qualifications”) that is the policy of the Union. UNISON's affiliation to the TUC is implemented by the NEC in accordance with its powers under Rule D.2.9.7 and as such is subject to Rule D.2.1 which provides that the NEC shall not do anything “that is inconsistent with” the policy of the Union “as laid down by the National Delegate Conference.
In approving for submission to the delegation meeting a selection of three motions which failed to comply with a specific Conference decision taken just three weeks previously the Presidential Team were acting on behalf of the NEC but, since what they did was inconsistent with Conference policy, neither the NEC nor the Presidential Team had the power under Rule to act as they did. As a Rule Book anorak I shall raise this with the General Secretary.
More important than these procedural points however (and they are important) I think it is a grave error that UNISON has not (yet) taken the opportunity to put on the TUC agenda a demand which unifies the interests of workers in the public and private sectors. We should do this because we have thousands of private sector members who are often forgotten – but we should also do it to defend the interests of our public sector members.
One of the greatest threats to public servants at the moment is the attempt on the part of the Government and employers to drive a wedge between public and private sector workers – seen most recently in the demand for a public sector pay freeze from the £250k a year head of the Audit Commission.
UNISON's response to this should not be to focus on the falling membership of UNITE and to stoke up fears that they will start poaching our public sector members. Instead we should be demanding that, as well as protecting conditions in the public sector, the TUC must fight for the same rights and conditions for private sector workers. The decision of our National Delegate Conference that one of our motions to the TUC should be a defence of final salary pension schemes across both the public and private sectors was not just a timely identification of a coming battle ground for our public sector members, it was also an intelligent attempt to build solidarity beyond the confines of the public sector.
The arrogant refusal to implement a Conference decision because of a foolish misunderstanding of the meaning of “support with qualifications” threatens to set back the interests of our members.
The only response to this argument at the delegation meeting was to add the word “pensions” to a call to oppose cuts in public services. This is positive but does nothing to indicate the need for a united campaign to defend final salary schemes across both the public and private sectors which was what Conference specifically agreed that we should do.
I hope that the NEC Policy Committee, who will have a chance in August to consider our three amendments to motions on the TUC Preliminary Agenda will try to repair the damage which has been done by the failure of the Presidential Team to implement Conference Policy.
(Update on Sunday 12 July – check out this cogent argument for the defence of defined benefit pension schemes across the private and public sectors over at Ian’s UNITE Site.)
The NEC meeting was followed by a meeting of the TUC delegation which I attended as an NEC member.
The delegation meeting had to choose three motions to submit to the TUC. In line with what was described as “the way we have always done things” (but was in fact in line with decisions taken only last year) the delegation meeting was presented with three draft motions from which to choose any three.
Formally these motions came from the Presidential Team (who had been elected the previous day) in consultation with the Chair of the Policy Committee (who had also been elected the previous day). In practice they had been drafted by officers.
Delegates queried the arrangements for submission of motions and were assured that all the “constituent bodies” of the TUC delegation (Regions, Service Groups, Self-Organised Groups etc.) had received adequate notice to submit either motions or ideas for motions and that where this had been done these had been taken into account.
The motions dealt with defending the NHS, fighting the BNP and public services.
The first motion “Defending Our NHS” calls for an end to privatisation in the Health Service and is likely to be the heart of one of the major composite motions at this year's Trades Union Congress.
The second motion “Fighting the BNP and Far Right” concentrates on a number of specific action points instructing the General Council on how to assist trade unions in responding to the rise of the far right. Delegates successfully proposed amendments to this motion from the floor in order to add a reference to “Unite Against Fascism” alongside “Searchlight.” Again I am sure that other trade unions will submit motions on this topic in the light of the results of the European elections and the confusion created by the new Employment Act and that this motion will become part of a Composite.
The third motion “Public Services and the Economy” deals with the need to protect public services in a recession. This gave rise to some debate as (of the three motions before the meeting) this was the only one in which any attempt could be made to implement a specific decision of our National Delegate Conference.
When this year's National Delegate Conference agreed Composite D “Defending UNISON Members' Pension Schemes” it took a specific decision as follows;
“UNISON to bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector.”
I argued that the Union should comply with this Conference decision and that, if the only way to do this was to add this demand into the motion on public services and the economy then this is what should have been done (making compensatory cuts elsewhere in the motion to comply with the TUC's stringent 250 word limit).
Both before and during the meeting it was pointed out to me (in respect of Composite D at National Delegate Conference) that “this had been our qualification” when the policy of the NEC on this motion had been agreed as “support with qualifications”. This laughable argument (in response to which I confess to having laughed) reflects a misunderstanding which is widespread at Mabledon Place, where there appears to be a view that if Conference passes a policy which the NEC has “supported with qualifications” then the NEC is somehow entitled to implement the Conference decision only in part because of those “qualifications”. There is no basis in Rule for this view.
I believe that the failure of UNISON to implement the policy of our Conference to “bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector” is both constitutionally and politically mistaken. If NEC colleagues believe that it is wrong for Conference to “tie the hands” of the TUC delegation with specific instructions about the submission of motions to the TUC then the NEC should either propose amendments or speak against such proposals. Once Conference has taken a decision, whether it was supported or opposed by the NEC (and regardless of any “qualifications”) that is the policy of the Union. UNISON's affiliation to the TUC is implemented by the NEC in accordance with its powers under Rule D.2.9.7 and as such is subject to Rule D.2.1 which provides that the NEC shall not do anything “that is inconsistent with” the policy of the Union “as laid down by the National Delegate Conference.
In approving for submission to the delegation meeting a selection of three motions which failed to comply with a specific Conference decision taken just three weeks previously the Presidential Team were acting on behalf of the NEC but, since what they did was inconsistent with Conference policy, neither the NEC nor the Presidential Team had the power under Rule to act as they did. As a Rule Book anorak I shall raise this with the General Secretary.
More important than these procedural points however (and they are important) I think it is a grave error that UNISON has not (yet) taken the opportunity to put on the TUC agenda a demand which unifies the interests of workers in the public and private sectors. We should do this because we have thousands of private sector members who are often forgotten – but we should also do it to defend the interests of our public sector members.
One of the greatest threats to public servants at the moment is the attempt on the part of the Government and employers to drive a wedge between public and private sector workers – seen most recently in the demand for a public sector pay freeze from the £250k a year head of the Audit Commission.
UNISON's response to this should not be to focus on the falling membership of UNITE and to stoke up fears that they will start poaching our public sector members. Instead we should be demanding that, as well as protecting conditions in the public sector, the TUC must fight for the same rights and conditions for private sector workers. The decision of our National Delegate Conference that one of our motions to the TUC should be a defence of final salary pension schemes across both the public and private sectors was not just a timely identification of a coming battle ground for our public sector members, it was also an intelligent attempt to build solidarity beyond the confines of the public sector.
The arrogant refusal to implement a Conference decision because of a foolish misunderstanding of the meaning of “support with qualifications” threatens to set back the interests of our members.
The only response to this argument at the delegation meeting was to add the word “pensions” to a call to oppose cuts in public services. This is positive but does nothing to indicate the need for a united campaign to defend final salary schemes across both the public and private sectors which was what Conference specifically agreed that we should do.
I hope that the NEC Policy Committee, who will have a chance in August to consider our three amendments to motions on the TUC Preliminary Agenda will try to repair the damage which has been done by the failure of the Presidential Team to implement Conference Policy.
(Update on Sunday 12 July – check out this cogent argument for the defence of defined benefit pension schemes across the private and public sectors over at Ian’s UNITE Site.)
UNISON Service Group Review
As the task of drafting my NEC report continues, here is a draft of what I will report on the important discussion of the new Service Group structures which had been agreed at Conference. This report had already been endorsed by the Service Group Liaison Committee on 1 July. Since the Service Group Liaison Committee is a more or less ad hoc gathering of representatives of Service Group Executives with representatives of some Sector Committees and a smattering of senior members of the NEC, I don't know who was in attendance on 1 July (as there were at that time no NEC Committee Chairs as they had not been elected). The minutes of that meeting will be received at the October NEC and I will report further then as appropriate.
My views of the Service Group Liaison Committee (a body which is not collectively accountable anywhere in our Union's structures) are similar to those of our Local Government Conference.
In describing the Conference decision not to give even a simple majority to the proposed devolution of accountability for bargaining to Sector Committees (in the absence of adequate arrangements for democratic accountability of those Committees) the report said that “Concerns at a perceived erosion of democratic accountability supplanted the member centred considerations at the heart of the NEC proposals.” (As I couldn't resist pointing out, Conference had – back in the 1990s – amended Rule B.2.2 to change the definition of UNISON from a “member centred” Union to a “member led” Union, and the decision of Conference was a fine example of our being “member led.”)
Some contributions to the debate suggested to me that there is a degree of confusion on our NEC about what was and was not agreed at Conference – in particular references to members in some sectors not wishing to remain within large local government branches were either at a complete tangent to the Conference decisions (which, we had been assured, had no implications for branch structures) or were an indication of the agenda which had led some to support the proposals in the first place.
The report itself however focused upon the Conference decisions and the main area for discussion were the practicalities of implementation. A deadline of 30 September to achieve the allocation of members to Service Groups was felt by many (myself included) to be overoptimistic. One NEC member who described themselves as being a member of the new “Community” Service Group was certainly jumping the gun. Conference has agreed new Service Group structures but it is the responsibility of the NEC (under Rule D.3.1.2 in the brand new 2009 Rule Book) to allocate members to Service Groups.
A working party of the Development and Organisation Committee is to be established to deal with the issues arising from this report. The creation of the Water, Environment and Transport Service Group should be fairly straightforward since it is the merger of two existing Service Groups. Similarly the new Police and Justice Service Group simply entails adding members employed in Probation to an existing Service Group.
However the creation of the Community Service Group will be more complex since it is not immediately obvious which of our members belong within it and Conference did not decide this. Member of dedicated Voluntary Sector branches are probably fairly clearly within this Service Group as are members in other branches who are identifiably part of the previous Community and Voluntary Sector.
However, with the spread of the contract culture, members are frequently transferring from “voluntary” organisations into private employers and back again (just as they are transferring in and out of the public sector). The Rule Book identifies four factors to be taken into account by the NEC when allocating members to Service Groups and the D&O Working Party will need to look at this in time to report to a Committee meeting in early September if the October NEC is to be able to take the necessary decisions.
The report also proposed that there should be further consideration of the question of democratic accountability of Sectors which may lead to either revised Rule Amendments or to the making of Regulations (under Rule D.2.9.2) or both. It may well be that if Regulations could be drafted which provided reassurance about the accountability of Sector Committees (and in particular allowed for annual Sector Conferences to determine Sector policy where that was the will of the Sector) then these would provide the reassurance that delegates were looking for in Brighton. However the devil will be in the detail.
If I am appointed to the Working Party by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Development and Organisation Committee I will be able to report further on this.
Among the other permissive (as opposed to prescriptive) recommendations of the report, which were agreed with general assent, was the suggestion that consideration be given to a cross-Service group Sector for Private Sector members and that the Energy and WET Service Groups re-establish arrangements for joint working on issues of mutual concern.
A fair amount of work will also be needed to establish “occupational groups” in line with the new Rule Q definition. This will be an important element of making members feel that UNISON is their Union in the sense that they can identify it with their own job. This sense of collective identity is an obvious strength of “industrial” Unions, such as the RMT, NUT and FBU who broadly organise in one “industry” but is much harder to inculcate in large general Unions such as UNISON, UNITE and the GMB.
In all, the work programme around the review of structures will be a major part of the work of the NEC in the coming year and beyond, and is important to developing our Union for the future.
There are many potential pitfalls and dangers, particularly in relation to branch organisation, but the real devolution of accountability for bargaining and the alignment of the Union with our members' occupational identities can strengthen UNISON.
In knocking back proposals which failed to ensure appropriate accountability within a member-led Union, Conference has helped the NEC to make the future structure of our Union stronger and more appropriate, and I hope that NEC colleagues will move forward constructively in the spirit of the report agreed on 9 July.
I also hope that there will be further discussion at Regional level, since limiting consultation to Service Group Chairs at National level will clearly not be adequate.
If any London UNISON branches would like a copy of the Report agreed by the NEC please let me know.
My views of the Service Group Liaison Committee (a body which is not collectively accountable anywhere in our Union's structures) are similar to those of our Local Government Conference.
In describing the Conference decision not to give even a simple majority to the proposed devolution of accountability for bargaining to Sector Committees (in the absence of adequate arrangements for democratic accountability of those Committees) the report said that “Concerns at a perceived erosion of democratic accountability supplanted the member centred considerations at the heart of the NEC proposals.” (As I couldn't resist pointing out, Conference had – back in the 1990s – amended Rule B.2.2 to change the definition of UNISON from a “member centred” Union to a “member led” Union, and the decision of Conference was a fine example of our being “member led.”)
Some contributions to the debate suggested to me that there is a degree of confusion on our NEC about what was and was not agreed at Conference – in particular references to members in some sectors not wishing to remain within large local government branches were either at a complete tangent to the Conference decisions (which, we had been assured, had no implications for branch structures) or were an indication of the agenda which had led some to support the proposals in the first place.
The report itself however focused upon the Conference decisions and the main area for discussion were the practicalities of implementation. A deadline of 30 September to achieve the allocation of members to Service Groups was felt by many (myself included) to be overoptimistic. One NEC member who described themselves as being a member of the new “Community” Service Group was certainly jumping the gun. Conference has agreed new Service Group structures but it is the responsibility of the NEC (under Rule D.3.1.2 in the brand new 2009 Rule Book) to allocate members to Service Groups.
A working party of the Development and Organisation Committee is to be established to deal with the issues arising from this report. The creation of the Water, Environment and Transport Service Group should be fairly straightforward since it is the merger of two existing Service Groups. Similarly the new Police and Justice Service Group simply entails adding members employed in Probation to an existing Service Group.
However the creation of the Community Service Group will be more complex since it is not immediately obvious which of our members belong within it and Conference did not decide this. Member of dedicated Voluntary Sector branches are probably fairly clearly within this Service Group as are members in other branches who are identifiably part of the previous Community and Voluntary Sector.
However, with the spread of the contract culture, members are frequently transferring from “voluntary” organisations into private employers and back again (just as they are transferring in and out of the public sector). The Rule Book identifies four factors to be taken into account by the NEC when allocating members to Service Groups and the D&O Working Party will need to look at this in time to report to a Committee meeting in early September if the October NEC is to be able to take the necessary decisions.
The report also proposed that there should be further consideration of the question of democratic accountability of Sectors which may lead to either revised Rule Amendments or to the making of Regulations (under Rule D.2.9.2) or both. It may well be that if Regulations could be drafted which provided reassurance about the accountability of Sector Committees (and in particular allowed for annual Sector Conferences to determine Sector policy where that was the will of the Sector) then these would provide the reassurance that delegates were looking for in Brighton. However the devil will be in the detail.
If I am appointed to the Working Party by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Development and Organisation Committee I will be able to report further on this.
Among the other permissive (as opposed to prescriptive) recommendations of the report, which were agreed with general assent, was the suggestion that consideration be given to a cross-Service group Sector for Private Sector members and that the Energy and WET Service Groups re-establish arrangements for joint working on issues of mutual concern.
A fair amount of work will also be needed to establish “occupational groups” in line with the new Rule Q definition. This will be an important element of making members feel that UNISON is their Union in the sense that they can identify it with their own job. This sense of collective identity is an obvious strength of “industrial” Unions, such as the RMT, NUT and FBU who broadly organise in one “industry” but is much harder to inculcate in large general Unions such as UNISON, UNITE and the GMB.
In all, the work programme around the review of structures will be a major part of the work of the NEC in the coming year and beyond, and is important to developing our Union for the future.
There are many potential pitfalls and dangers, particularly in relation to branch organisation, but the real devolution of accountability for bargaining and the alignment of the Union with our members' occupational identities can strengthen UNISON.
In knocking back proposals which failed to ensure appropriate accountability within a member-led Union, Conference has helped the NEC to make the future structure of our Union stronger and more appropriate, and I hope that NEC colleagues will move forward constructively in the spirit of the report agreed on 9 July.
I also hope that there will be further discussion at Regional level, since limiting consultation to Service Group Chairs at National level will clearly not be adequate.
If any London UNISON branches would like a copy of the Report agreed by the NEC please let me know.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
General Secretary's Report to the UNISON NEC
I am still drafting my report to London UNISON branches from the NEC meeting which took place over the last two days - an official report of which is now online.
Here, to be going on with, is the unexpurgated first draft of the section of my report dealing with the report of the General Secretary;
The second day of the NEC meeting commenced with the report of the General Secretary who (as usual) gave a wide ranging verbal report of which I shall report the main items.
The NEC agreed to send a message of support to members taking strike action at London Metropolitan University on Tuesday 14 July.
In relation to the decision of Conference not to approve Rule Amendments intended to facilitate disciplinary action against members of the British National Party and other far right organisations (because many delegates feared that the wording of the the proposed Rules was too vague and threatened action against other political opponents of the Union leadership) Dave stated that we had to “sit down as a Union and work out how we are going to deal with” the UNISON members who appear on the list of BNP members which has been circulated quite widely.
Following the Conference decision a number of those who had been in support of the proposed Rule Amendment had foolishly suggested that it would not be possible for UNISON to take any action against BNP members in our ranks. I had even heard this view expressed by an NEC member in the Greater London Region. However Dave Prentis adopted a more mature and sensible approach, expressing his regret that we would now have to involve more people (and more effort) in taking action (and saying that it was a “disaster” that we now needed to do this) but nevertheless committing us to taking action (and agreeing to seek legal advice on circulating the information on BNP membership which the national Union has to our branches).
The Chair of the Development and Organisation Committee said that guidance would be issued to branches on how to take action in relation to BNP members in our ranks and that branches would also be advised to await that guidance before taking any action. Since evidence of BNP membership on the part of a UNISON member provides sufficient grounds (in accordance with Rule I.5) to commence an investigation into whether the member has been active in support of that Party (contrary to Rule I.3) I hope that this guidance will be available very soon and that it will therefore not be necessary to circulate unofficial guidance.
Informed views of the current law suggest that it will be difficult to take action against a Union member simply for their membership of the BNP (which implies that the NEC's optimistic reliance upon questionable legal advice may have been misleading to Conference). It is however possible to take action against any UNISON member actively supporting the BNP and branches should initiate investigations wherever they have evidence of such activity (obviously seeking the advice of the Regional office as appropriate).
I noted that when Glenn Kelly (NEC member for local government) spoke in this debate and – in measured tones – suggested that the Conference's refusal to back the NEC proposal with the requisite two thirds majority reflected views about the political witch hunt in the Union, he was howled down by the majority of my NEC colleagues. Far from intervening to chastise the meeting for its treatment of an NEC member deserving of respect, the President sought to silence Glenn.
This behaviour on the part of the majority of the NEC very much gives the lie to the confected “outrage” about heckling at Conference, a subject upon which some colleagues have wasted a lot of time and hot air. I hope to hear no more complaints about gentle heckling from Conference delegates from the hypocrites who howled Glenn down (but appreciate that this may be a triumph of hope over experience!)
Dave also dealt in his report with the threats of privatisation of primary care services within the National Health Service and stated that this would be a major campaign for the Union in the run up to the TUC and Labour Party Conferences and that we had “re-formed” the NHS Together campaign, bringing together all the TUC health unions with the RCN and BMA to defend the health service (under UNISON's leadership).
Dave spoke about the “Million Voices for Change” campaign and said that this would be a nationally coordinated campaign reflecting the priorities of branches, Regions and Service Groups. The General Secretary also responded positively to my suggestion that we should use this campaign to showcase examples of good practice such as the campaigning activities of the Barnet local government branch in response to their employer's “Future Shape” proposals. In discussing the public sector pay freeze proposals disgracefully advanced by the overpaid head of the Audit Commission, Dave said that the Treasury seemed to be retreating on this at the moment but that it remained a threat.
In response to questions, the General Secretary confirmed that the National Labour Link Committee had suspended all UNISON Constituency Development Plans and that the Committee were working on criteria by which to determine whether to resume support for any Constituency Labour Parties, and would also be reviewing our relationship with Members of Parliament. He reminded the NEC that there is a review of the effectiveness of our political fund (in connection with which branches should be completing and returning a questionnaire).
On being asked about pensions, Dave said that a factsheet would be issued as part of the Million Voices campaign – and the Chair of the Service Group Liaison Committee confirmed that a meeting of representatives of Service Groups and Sectors would take place on 30 July to discuss the defence of the Local Government Pension Scheme. Branches wishing more information about this should contact their Service Group or Sector representative.
Tomorrow I hope to finish the report back from the NEC meeting - covering the discussion of the review of UNISON structures and the implementation of Conference decisions on Service Groups - and also to report back from the TUC delegation meeting (at which a specific Conference decision was ignored because it had only been supported "with qualifications"...)
Here, to be going on with, is the unexpurgated first draft of the section of my report dealing with the report of the General Secretary;
The second day of the NEC meeting commenced with the report of the General Secretary who (as usual) gave a wide ranging verbal report of which I shall report the main items.
The NEC agreed to send a message of support to members taking strike action at London Metropolitan University on Tuesday 14 July.
In relation to the decision of Conference not to approve Rule Amendments intended to facilitate disciplinary action against members of the British National Party and other far right organisations (because many delegates feared that the wording of the the proposed Rules was too vague and threatened action against other political opponents of the Union leadership) Dave stated that we had to “sit down as a Union and work out how we are going to deal with” the UNISON members who appear on the list of BNP members which has been circulated quite widely.
Following the Conference decision a number of those who had been in support of the proposed Rule Amendment had foolishly suggested that it would not be possible for UNISON to take any action against BNP members in our ranks. I had even heard this view expressed by an NEC member in the Greater London Region. However Dave Prentis adopted a more mature and sensible approach, expressing his regret that we would now have to involve more people (and more effort) in taking action (and saying that it was a “disaster” that we now needed to do this) but nevertheless committing us to taking action (and agreeing to seek legal advice on circulating the information on BNP membership which the national Union has to our branches).
The Chair of the Development and Organisation Committee said that guidance would be issued to branches on how to take action in relation to BNP members in our ranks and that branches would also be advised to await that guidance before taking any action. Since evidence of BNP membership on the part of a UNISON member provides sufficient grounds (in accordance with Rule I.5) to commence an investigation into whether the member has been active in support of that Party (contrary to Rule I.3) I hope that this guidance will be available very soon and that it will therefore not be necessary to circulate unofficial guidance.
Informed views of the current law suggest that it will be difficult to take action against a Union member simply for their membership of the BNP (which implies that the NEC's optimistic reliance upon questionable legal advice may have been misleading to Conference). It is however possible to take action against any UNISON member actively supporting the BNP and branches should initiate investigations wherever they have evidence of such activity (obviously seeking the advice of the Regional office as appropriate).
I noted that when Glenn Kelly (NEC member for local government) spoke in this debate and – in measured tones – suggested that the Conference's refusal to back the NEC proposal with the requisite two thirds majority reflected views about the political witch hunt in the Union, he was howled down by the majority of my NEC colleagues. Far from intervening to chastise the meeting for its treatment of an NEC member deserving of respect, the President sought to silence Glenn.
This behaviour on the part of the majority of the NEC very much gives the lie to the confected “outrage” about heckling at Conference, a subject upon which some colleagues have wasted a lot of time and hot air. I hope to hear no more complaints about gentle heckling from Conference delegates from the hypocrites who howled Glenn down (but appreciate that this may be a triumph of hope over experience!)
Dave also dealt in his report with the threats of privatisation of primary care services within the National Health Service and stated that this would be a major campaign for the Union in the run up to the TUC and Labour Party Conferences and that we had “re-formed” the NHS Together campaign, bringing together all the TUC health unions with the RCN and BMA to defend the health service (under UNISON's leadership).
Dave spoke about the “Million Voices for Change” campaign and said that this would be a nationally coordinated campaign reflecting the priorities of branches, Regions and Service Groups. The General Secretary also responded positively to my suggestion that we should use this campaign to showcase examples of good practice such as the campaigning activities of the Barnet local government branch in response to their employer's “Future Shape” proposals. In discussing the public sector pay freeze proposals disgracefully advanced by the overpaid head of the Audit Commission, Dave said that the Treasury seemed to be retreating on this at the moment but that it remained a threat.
In response to questions, the General Secretary confirmed that the National Labour Link Committee had suspended all UNISON Constituency Development Plans and that the Committee were working on criteria by which to determine whether to resume support for any Constituency Labour Parties, and would also be reviewing our relationship with Members of Parliament. He reminded the NEC that there is a review of the effectiveness of our political fund (in connection with which branches should be completing and returning a questionnaire).
On being asked about pensions, Dave said that a factsheet would be issued as part of the Million Voices campaign – and the Chair of the Service Group Liaison Committee confirmed that a meeting of representatives of Service Groups and Sectors would take place on 30 July to discuss the defence of the Local Government Pension Scheme. Branches wishing more information about this should contact their Service Group or Sector representative.
Tomorrow I hope to finish the report back from the NEC meeting - covering the discussion of the review of UNISON structures and the implementation of Conference decisions on Service Groups - and also to report back from the TUC delegation meeting (at which a specific Conference decision was ignored because it had only been supported "with qualifications"...)
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
John McDermott and the NEC Election
What follows is the text of an open letter to the General Secretary of UNISON which has (this evening) elicited the following (perhaps disappointing) response; “I refer to your letter date 6 July 2009, co signed by 8 other NEC members. The union has received formal notice that legal action is being taken against it in connection with this matter. Therefore it would be inappropriate to comment further until the legal process has been concluded“
The letter read as follows;
"We are writing as members of the National Executive Council (NEC) to make a number of points about the status of John McDermott in relation to the recent NEC election, and also to make a constructive proposal to resolve the issue which has arisen as a result of the independent scrutineer publishing a report in which in one case they have declared the losing candidate to have been elected.
John was eligible for nomination in accordance with the election procedures (as is evidenced by his name appearing on the ballot paper). The election procedures deal with eligibility for nomination (at paragraph 11) but are silent as to what happens if the status of a candidate changes after they have been nominated.
After John had been nominated (but before he was elected) he was dismissed by his employer as a result of a dispute in which UNISON was supporting him. His branch at the time sought to continue his full membership in accordance with Rule C.7.1.2.
When John was excluded from the April meeting of the National Executive Council it was proposed that the NEC could take a vote to use its powers under either Rule C.7.1.1 or Rule C.2.4.2 to have permitted John to remain. The then President would not permit a vote on these suggestions but only on the suggestion that John be permitted to remain as an observer (a proposal which was defeated).
John subsequently resumed employment and full membership of UNISON. John is eligible to take up his seat now, and has been since the result was declared – in accordance with Schedule C.7, which refers to eligibility from the point of election. The Rule Book is silent as to circumstances such as he found himself in between nomination and election.
Under section 51 subsection 6 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 the ballot must be conducted so that the result is determined solely by counting the number of votes cast directly for each candidate. John got 4,670 votes. His opponent had secured 4,577 votes.
The first that John knew that he had won the vote was when he saw the results. The first that he knew that he had been “withdrawn” from the election was at exactly the same time.
John is not a member of a "class of members" excluded from eligibility by the Union's Rules and it is not lawful for him unreasonably to be excluded in accordance with section 47 of the Act.
Therefore, on the face of it, ERS appear to have been wrong to certify the election as having taken place in accordance with the statute. This may have arisen as a result of incorrect information being provided to ERS from within UNISON or it may have arisen for some other reason. If information was provided to ERS on UNISON’s behalf (or by someone who believed that they were acting on UNISON’s behalf) which led ERS to conclude that John should be “withdrawn” from the election, we would be grateful to have some further information about this.
In particular we would like to know why neither UNISON nor ERS informed John that he had been "withdrawn" from the election in advance of publication of the results to all candidates. If it is felt that the legislation prohibits this in some way we would appreciate an explanation of why this was so.
However, the independent scrutineer has now reported to the Union that John has not been elected. Harvey's Law of Employment suggests that if a Union considers that the independent scrutineer has made an error the prudent course of action will be to refer the matter to the Certification Officer.
UNISON cannot expect that John will simply drop this matter having won the election. To do so would disrespect our Union and the members who voted in the election expecting that the winning candidate would be elected.
Equally, no one wants avoidable conflict about this issue to divert our collective energies from confronting hostile Government policies, preparing for the prospect of a Tory Government, or taking on the far right.
Therefore we wish to propose that UNISON should support John in referring the matter to the Certification Officer. If it is necessary for John to submit a complaint, so should another
UNISON member (acting with the consent of the NEC). Any UNISON member would appear to have sufficient locus to take such action.
All parties should then agree to accept the decision of the Certification Officer and to abide by any enforcement order about this matter if one were made by the Certification Officer. We hope that you will agree that this is a sensible approach to resolving a difficult question and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
April Ashley
Roger Bannister
Bernadette Gallagher
Paul Holmes
Glenn Kelly
Vicky Perrin
Jon Rogers
Jean Thorpe
Hannah Walter"
The letter read as follows;
"We are writing as members of the National Executive Council (NEC) to make a number of points about the status of John McDermott in relation to the recent NEC election, and also to make a constructive proposal to resolve the issue which has arisen as a result of the independent scrutineer publishing a report in which in one case they have declared the losing candidate to have been elected.
John was eligible for nomination in accordance with the election procedures (as is evidenced by his name appearing on the ballot paper). The election procedures deal with eligibility for nomination (at paragraph 11) but are silent as to what happens if the status of a candidate changes after they have been nominated.
After John had been nominated (but before he was elected) he was dismissed by his employer as a result of a dispute in which UNISON was supporting him. His branch at the time sought to continue his full membership in accordance with Rule C.7.1.2.
When John was excluded from the April meeting of the National Executive Council it was proposed that the NEC could take a vote to use its powers under either Rule C.7.1.1 or Rule C.2.4.2 to have permitted John to remain. The then President would not permit a vote on these suggestions but only on the suggestion that John be permitted to remain as an observer (a proposal which was defeated).
John subsequently resumed employment and full membership of UNISON. John is eligible to take up his seat now, and has been since the result was declared – in accordance with Schedule C.7, which refers to eligibility from the point of election. The Rule Book is silent as to circumstances such as he found himself in between nomination and election.
Under section 51 subsection 6 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 the ballot must be conducted so that the result is determined solely by counting the number of votes cast directly for each candidate. John got 4,670 votes. His opponent had secured 4,577 votes.
The first that John knew that he had won the vote was when he saw the results. The first that he knew that he had been “withdrawn” from the election was at exactly the same time.
John is not a member of a "class of members" excluded from eligibility by the Union's Rules and it is not lawful for him unreasonably to be excluded in accordance with section 47 of the Act.
Therefore, on the face of it, ERS appear to have been wrong to certify the election as having taken place in accordance with the statute. This may have arisen as a result of incorrect information being provided to ERS from within UNISON or it may have arisen for some other reason. If information was provided to ERS on UNISON’s behalf (or by someone who believed that they were acting on UNISON’s behalf) which led ERS to conclude that John should be “withdrawn” from the election, we would be grateful to have some further information about this.
In particular we would like to know why neither UNISON nor ERS informed John that he had been "withdrawn" from the election in advance of publication of the results to all candidates. If it is felt that the legislation prohibits this in some way we would appreciate an explanation of why this was so.
However, the independent scrutineer has now reported to the Union that John has not been elected. Harvey's Law of Employment suggests that if a Union considers that the independent scrutineer has made an error the prudent course of action will be to refer the matter to the Certification Officer.
UNISON cannot expect that John will simply drop this matter having won the election. To do so would disrespect our Union and the members who voted in the election expecting that the winning candidate would be elected.
Equally, no one wants avoidable conflict about this issue to divert our collective energies from confronting hostile Government policies, preparing for the prospect of a Tory Government, or taking on the far right.
Therefore we wish to propose that UNISON should support John in referring the matter to the Certification Officer. If it is necessary for John to submit a complaint, so should another
UNISON member (acting with the consent of the NEC). Any UNISON member would appear to have sufficient locus to take such action.
All parties should then agree to accept the decision of the Certification Officer and to abide by any enforcement order about this matter if one were made by the Certification Officer. We hope that you will agree that this is a sensible approach to resolving a difficult question and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
April Ashley
Roger Bannister
Bernadette Gallagher
Paul Holmes
Glenn Kelly
Vicky Perrin
Jon Rogers
Jean Thorpe
Hannah Walter"
Plus ca change
Here is a sneak preview of the first paragraphs of my personal report of the first meeting of the new UNISON National Executive Council (NEC).
The meeting commenced with election of the Presidential Team. Gerry Gallagher was elected unopposed as President and Angela Lynes and Eleanor Smith were elected unopposed as Vice-Presidents. Eleanor is the first black member to hold the office of Vice-President.
The President then made some opening remarks, which he advised the NEC that he had written himself, in which he criticised the unnamed organisers of “what went on at the end of Conference” (when senior officers of the Union decided not to convene an NEC meeting because of the presence of a candidate who (despite having won most votes) had not been declared elected). Gerry expressed disappointment not for himself but for family members and others who had been upset. He said that he would be prepared to forgive these unidentified individuals but that it would take a long time to forget.
The NEC then embarked upon the equally purposeless annual exercise of the “review of Conference” in which NEC members are split into small groups to consider what went well and less well at Conference. The London NEC members were sat together for this and we agreed not to discuss any political points after some fairly forthright disagreements. I was disappointed that one fellow London NEC member was very dismissive of the General Secretary's keynote Conference speech in which he took up the question of our relationship with the Labour Party in a way which was welcomed by the great majority of delegates. I hope that we will hear more about this tomorrow.
The NEC then approved the allocation of members to Committees, and the Committees then met to elect their Chairs and Vice Chairs. I am a member of the Development and Organisation Committee once again (and, once again, only of that Committee).
Sue Highton is Chair of the Development and Organisation Committee once more with Chris Tansley as Chair.
Jane Carolan and Steve Warwick remain as Chair and Vice Chair of the Policy Committee.
Alison Shepherd remains Chair of the International Committee with Linda Sweet as Vice Chair.
Maureen LeMarinel Chairs the Services to Members Committee with Gerry Gallagher as Vice-Chair.
Bob Oram and Sue Forster remain Chair and Vice Chair of the Staffing Committee.
Mike Hayes and Fiona Smith remain as Chair and Vice Chair of the Finance Committee.
Angela Lynes and Colm Magee remain Chair and Vice Chair of the Industrial Action Committee to which I sought election without success.
The outcome of elections to the General Political Fund and Labour Link Committees are awaited as I write this.
In relation to the regrettable tone and content of the President's opening remarks I am pleased to report that a number of NEC members have made a constructive proposal to resolve the situation created by the candidate who won one of our elections not having been declared to have been elected.
It is a great shame that the leadership of the Union failed to take responsibility for a proactive and constructive response to this situation before (or for that matter after) the declaration of the results.
The meeting commenced with election of the Presidential Team. Gerry Gallagher was elected unopposed as President and Angela Lynes and Eleanor Smith were elected unopposed as Vice-Presidents. Eleanor is the first black member to hold the office of Vice-President.
The President then made some opening remarks, which he advised the NEC that he had written himself, in which he criticised the unnamed organisers of “what went on at the end of Conference” (when senior officers of the Union decided not to convene an NEC meeting because of the presence of a candidate who (despite having won most votes) had not been declared elected). Gerry expressed disappointment not for himself but for family members and others who had been upset. He said that he would be prepared to forgive these unidentified individuals but that it would take a long time to forget.
The NEC then embarked upon the equally purposeless annual exercise of the “review of Conference” in which NEC members are split into small groups to consider what went well and less well at Conference. The London NEC members were sat together for this and we agreed not to discuss any political points after some fairly forthright disagreements. I was disappointed that one fellow London NEC member was very dismissive of the General Secretary's keynote Conference speech in which he took up the question of our relationship with the Labour Party in a way which was welcomed by the great majority of delegates. I hope that we will hear more about this tomorrow.
The NEC then approved the allocation of members to Committees, and the Committees then met to elect their Chairs and Vice Chairs. I am a member of the Development and Organisation Committee once again (and, once again, only of that Committee).
Sue Highton is Chair of the Development and Organisation Committee once more with Chris Tansley as Chair.
Jane Carolan and Steve Warwick remain as Chair and Vice Chair of the Policy Committee.
Alison Shepherd remains Chair of the International Committee with Linda Sweet as Vice Chair.
Maureen LeMarinel Chairs the Services to Members Committee with Gerry Gallagher as Vice-Chair.
Bob Oram and Sue Forster remain Chair and Vice Chair of the Staffing Committee.
Mike Hayes and Fiona Smith remain as Chair and Vice Chair of the Finance Committee.
Angela Lynes and Colm Magee remain Chair and Vice Chair of the Industrial Action Committee to which I sought election without success.
The outcome of elections to the General Political Fund and Labour Link Committees are awaited as I write this.
In relation to the regrettable tone and content of the President's opening remarks I am pleased to report that a number of NEC members have made a constructive proposal to resolve the situation created by the candidate who won one of our elections not having been declared to have been elected.
It is a great shame that the leadership of the Union failed to take responsibility for a proactive and constructive response to this situation before (or for that matter after) the declaration of the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
