A number
of members have asked about why the Certification Officer (CO) has already
ruled out three complaints raised by Roger Bannister (RB).
Before
reading this post, if you are unfamiliar with #UNISONGATE scroll down this post
to the background which provides links details of #UNISONGATE
I am not
a lawyer I am a lay rep in Barnet UNISON.
I have to
deal with members issues every day and unfortunately I am in branch (Barnet
UNISON) where the employer has been preparing and planning and delivering mass
outsourcing for the past 8 years.
Almost
all the representation and negotiation I have done individually or with a team
has not needed a lawyer. The law very rarely delivers justice. It is organising
and mobilising workers that aids negotiation not legal threats.
It is
true that there are at times some decisions that do bring a benefits for workers
in Barnet we won a over £1 million for our members.
So, why did the CO rule out three
of the complaints?
All three
of the complaints concerned the audio recording of a UNISON meeting of paid
officials on 21 October 2015 held
in TUC Congress House.
Here are
couple of extracts of the recording.
“We have done very well and I
want to thank everybody and congratulate them on getting the nominations that
they have got. This is a list of the Greater London branch nominations for Dave
Prentis the deadline closed last Friday, I do not have a list of the other
candidates, and that will appear in due course but I haven’t got it. But we
have done very well, we’ve got almost 50 nominations here so that is excellent
and thanks very much, er Dave is very very pleased and he has related that to
me personally er it is very important because obviously this is going to be a
hard fought election.”
“you clearly cannot be caught out
saying vote for Dave but we do expect you to talk to branches, the nominating
ones certainly about that.”
(UNISON London Regional Secretary
to UNISON London Region paid officials on 21 October 2015).
Now you have heard the
recordings, what do you think?
I looked
at what Roger had to say and I have to say I support all three of his complaints.
As I said I am not a lawyer, but look on page
6 paragraph12, what he is saying makes sense to me a lay member.
“By using the resources of the
union contrary to the Election Procedures UNISON officers interfered in the
election in a manner deliberately intended to undermine the concept of a member-led
union.”
“Unconstitutional interference in
an election process, in breach of the Election Procedures directly threatens
the object of this particular Rule.”
“This rule gets to the heart of
UNISON’s raison d’etre, if fair balloting is so important as to justify a
reference in those Rules relating to the Aims and Objectives of the union, then
breaches of them as important as these cannot be lightly ignored, and the
election should be re-run.”
Go back
and listen to the audio tape again. I am in no doubt that there is something
seriously wrong.
The CO
explains that for the complaints to have a chance of success they must be a
clear and direct link to section
108A(2) of the 1992 Act which states:
108A Right to apply to Certification Officer
(1) A person who claims that there has been a breach or threatened
breach of
the rules of a trade union relating to any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (2)
may apply to the Certification Officer for a declaration to that effect,
subject to
subsections (3) to (7).
(2) The matters are –
(a) the appointment or election
of a person to, or the removal of a person from,
any office;
(b) disciplinary proceedings by the union (including expulsion);
(c) the balloting of members on
any issue other than industrial action;
(d) the constitution or proceedings of any executive committee or of any
decision-making meeting;
(e) such other matters as may be specified in an order made by the
Secretary of
State.
I have highlighted the relevant
parts of section 108(2) which I believe are relevant.
However, the CO felt he did not
have the power to decide if UNISON had breached B2.2, B2.4 and B4.6 of its
rules.
Wow.
My question here for UNISON members and reps is.
Does it matter if it is lawful, is there a wider and much more
fundamental question of ethics and transparency at stake here ?
It is almost 10
months since #UNISONGATE became public and there has been no announcement of
any investigation and no condemnation
of the language heard on the tape or in the Team Dave emails.
There are some in UNISON who think all this is
history and they want it all to go away.
Indeed some UNISON
senior lay reps took a very aggressive reaction when #UNISONGATE first
broke. But more about that another time.
When I listen to what the grassroots female workers have to complain about I recognise a
pattern.
I read something similar a few years ago here about low paid workers
Or when I read in Private Eye in February 2016 this
extract from Team Dave emails
“One striking “Team Dave” note says: “it may be in some circumstance you
may be able to ‘circumvent’ hostile branches by working with sympathetic
employer contacts. I acknowledge that some colleagues may feel this is
ethically inappropriate but it doesn’t breach campaign rules; it will have to
be done with caution.”
I was later sent three documents containing Team
Dave emails and can confirm the above quote in Private Eye is accurate.
I know there are lots of examples of this worrying
culture, not just in my union but others just like there are in many
organisations.
It would be easy, to say, I have done my time, I
have had enough.
Believe me, I have been very close to quitting, but
then I think, why should I leave the union, why should I give up representing
members?
I can’t be a spectator when I see injustice, others
may do so, to survive, that is a coping strategy, but I can’t.
So I am not
quitting and I am proud to be standing with our “first
eleven”
I also fully support what Roger was trying to do,
by bringing to light something that happened which does not belong in our
union.
You might always win the legal battles, but this
fight is for the heart and soul of our union and I for one will not step away
now.
6 October 2016.
Solidarity
