The Decision of the Socialist Party to Stand a
Candidate, Knowing They Had no Chance of Winning was Sheer Madness
Useless right-winger Christine McAnea is narrowly elected thanks to the self-destructive sectarianism of the left
UNISON
has been controlled by the right-wing ever since it was founded.First Rodney Bickerstaffe and then the
insipid Blairite clone Dave Prentis were General Secretary.Under Prentis UNISON became a byword for
political corruption when he was found to have cheated,
enlisting paid union officials in London as part of his campaign.
A genuine working class activist who would have turned UNISON into the fighting union it should be
Christine McAnea, a former
assistant general secretary, was narrowly backed by the National Executive polling
63,900 votes, 47.7 per cent of the vote. Paul Holmes, a genuine working class candidate
who promised to do the job on a workers’ wage, received the nomination of both
the South East and North West regions. Paul received 45,220 votes.
This useless lump of lard is the Regional official who investigated me - the only time I ever saw him before that was when Prentis sent him to our union meeting to argue in favour of calling off strike action
Roger McKenzie, the
soft left candidate who was supported by Jeremy Corbyn, came third with 14,450
votes and Hugo Pierre of the Socialist Party was last with 10,382 votes.
It is clear that a
single left candidate could have won. A combined left campaign could have made
the difference. If Hugo Pierre had pulled out pressure could have been put on
McKenzie to do the same. It was sheer sectarian madness, a classic case of building
the party at the expense of the class, which led to Pierre to stubbornly
refusing to quit despite having no chance whatsoever.
For 10 years,
throughout the years of austerity of Cameron, May and Johnson, Prentis did all
he could to damp down action against the Tories/Lib Dems savage cuts in local government.
Workers in Southampton Council having been betrayed simply switched to Unite.
I was suspended
for 3 years from UNISON for publicly
criticising Steve Terry, a London regional official who scabbed on Stan
Keable who was sacked when on a demonstration he argued, quite correctly, that
the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis during the war. A clear case of free
speech but Terry, being a right-wing Progress councillor on Walthamstow Council, refused
to give Stan any support and even acted to prevent me representing him at an
appeal hearing at Fulham and Hammersmith Council.
Despite failing to
give Stan any support he easily won his Employment Tribunal case, the appeal
for which is currently being heard before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Dave Prentis - in a competition with Keir Starmer, its difficult to know who is the more charismatic - his only talent was for running the union like a mafia boss
UNISON is a rich
union with at least £100 million in reserve. It is in an excellent position to
mount a fightback against the cuts in local government yet its only
achievements have been to feather the nest of its unelected, unaccountable
officials. When disciplinary action was first taken against me who did I deal
with but a Beth Bickerstaffe, the Executive Secretary.
It was I thought a
strange coincidence that she shared the same unusual surname with the first
General Secretary, Rodney Bickerstaffe.But having inquired of her, without success, whether she was any
relation, I later learnt that she was his daughter-in-law!
I am sure that her
interview was one of those equal opportunities interviews, except that she
seems to have been more equal than the rest!
Either way the
General Secretary election was a golden opportunity to sweep the right-wing out
of the union and transform UNISON into a fighting union. Careerism and left sectarianism
have ensured that the right-wing narrowly retains their hold.
There will be fresh
elections in 5 years time.I just hope
that the Socialist Party has learnt its lesson and doesn’t split the vote again
for narrow sectarian party building purposes. The purpose of left groups it to
increase the fighting capacity of the working class not to let the right-wing of
the trade union movement retain their grip.
UNISON
HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER – why did
unelected officials refuse to
defend the right of workers to freedom of speech?
Cast your mind back to
March 26th 2018. The Board of Deputies of British Jews held a demonstration against ‘anti-Semitism’
in Parliament Square. Its target was Jeremy Corbyn. We were in the middle of
the local election campaign and Luciana Berger, who was a Labour MP before
decamping to the Independent Group, had just discovered a 7 year old ‘anti-Semitic’
to beat Jeremy Corbyn over the head with.
The Board of Deputies at the time of Oswald Moseley urged Jew to do nothing about fascism
Never before in its history had the Board
of Deputies held an anti-racist demonstration. Not during the 1930’s in the
battle againstOswald Moseley’s British Union
of Fascists. Not during the 1970’s
in the fight against the National Front or in succeeding decades against the
BNP and EDL. But when Israel was on the agenda they moved into action.
Steve Terry - right-wing Progress Labour councillor and UNISON's London Regional Organiser faced a conflict of interest and resolved it in his favour
Indeed on October 2nd
1936 the Board specifically issued warnings in the Jewish Chronicle telling Jews
to stay away from the BUF march in what became known
as the Battle of Cable Street.
Letter from Steve Terry advising Stan to apologise and 'plead mitigating circumstances'
‘Anti-Semitism’ had only, it would seem reared
its head under Jeremy Corbyn, the left-wing leader of the Labour Party. The
fact that he is also a supporter of the Palestinians is entirely coincidental!
The Zionists' Racist Demonstration that Momentum Ignored
But on March 26th
2018, the Board and the Zionists girded their loins and organised a demonstration.
Indeed not only the Board but those well known anti-racists Ian Paisley of the
DUP, Norman Tebbit, Sajid David and even Chuka Ummuna attended.It was the strangest ‘anti-racist
demonstration ever seen as it seemed to be composed mainly of racists.
The late David Cesarani was a Zionist historian confirming Nazi support for the German Zionists, who represented about 3% of the Jewish community
There was also a
counter-demonstration to the Zionists organised by Jewish Voice for Labour and
supported by Labour Against the Witchhunt.At the counter demonstration LAW Secretary Stan Keable got into a
discussion with a Zionist demonstrator, during the course of which Stan
expressed his view that the Zionists had collaborated before the war with the Nazis.
David Grossman, BBC2 journalist - the ethics of a demented skunk - note how allegations of collaboration have become 'plotting with Hitler' and how the Holocaust isn't antisemitic
The evidence for this
point of view is extensive. However a BBC2 Newsnight ‘journalist’ David
Grossman secretly filmed the exchange, posting it on social media.Immediately came a demand by a junior government
minister and Tory MP Greg Hands, for Hammersmith Council
to dismiss Stan for having the temerity to express his opinions.
Instead of Council leader
Steve Cowan telling Hands to get
on his bike, this New Labour apparatchik immediately had Stan suspended.
You might think that this
was a slam dunk for Stan’s union, UNISON. Stan approached their London Regional
Organiser, Steve Terry, to help him fight the case. Little did Stan know that
Terry was a right-wing councillor in Walthamstow and a supporter of Progress.
Instead of supporting Stan he told him to plead guilty and plead mitigation!
I spoke, briefly to Terry
on the phone and pointed out that the suspension was a breach of Articles 10
and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Assembly and
Freedom of Speech) however he was too arrogant to take advice.
Unfortunately it's not true
I therefore represented
Stan at his disciplinary hearing and on May 21st he was dismissed. An
appeal was made and London UNISON successfully prevented me representing Stan thereon although the Secretary of the local branch represented him.The appeal nonetheless failed.
It is therefore
gratifying to learn that nearly a year later, the Central London Employment Tribunal
has upheld the claim of Stan Keable for unfair dismissal, both procedural and
substantive. The judgement has not yet been put online but it took 2 hours to
read out.
Beth Bickerstaff, a senior UNISON official, dismisses out of hand Stan's complaint at the refusal to provide support for Stan's disciplinary hearing - it is a case of one unelected official covering the back of another
UNISON’s failure to
defend the right to free speech of its members is shameful and shocking. There is
no excuse for the behaviour of Stephen Terry nor that of his superiors such as
Beth Bickerstaffe who upheld the decision of Terry not to give Stan any
support.
Why has this
happened?Undoubtedly it is a product of
UNISON having adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism which effectively
outlaws criticism of Zionism. It is a definition which effectively renders
UNISON’s policy of BDS and support for the Palestinians as ‘anti-Semitic’. It means that criticism of Zionism, the ideology and movement behind the establishment of the Apartheid State of Israel is also 'antisemitic' based as it is on the assumption that all Jews are therefore Zionists.
Linda Perks, who broke UNISON's election rules, was effectively promoted for what she had done
Prentis went out of his way to support Adam Langleben of the Jewish Labour Movement who like a rat left Labour for the TIGs. He is now marshalling the case against Labour before the EHRC
Dave Prentis after last
year’s elections, went out of his way to extend his sympathy to a Jewish Labour
Movement Councillor and Officer, Adam Langleben who, as a result of the false anti-Semitism
campaign, managed to lose his own seat in Hendon West.Langleben is a scab who subsequently jumped
ship entirely and joined Chuka Ummuna’s Independent Group. Who knows where he
will now go given the split in the Funny Tinge!
The only person penalised
throughout all of this was me.On 8th
October, after a farcical and incompetent investigation carried by Regional
Officer Tony Jones I was summoned
to a disciplinary hearing conducted by 3 Prentis loyalists headed by Mark
Fischer.I was found guilty and
sentenced to the heaviest punishment bar expulsion – 3 years suspension with
loss of membership rights – for having dared to criticise Terry’s treacherous
behaviour. UNISON is run by full-time officials for full-time officials.Members are not supposed to criticise these
unelected, overpaid bureaucrats.
Terry himself though did
not make a complaint. It was his superior, Maggi Ferncombe, who had
previously been SE Regional Secretary. I have previously crossed swords with her. This meant that at the disciplinary hearing I was faced with the
somewhat difficult task of cross examining Ferncombe as to what was Terry’s
reactions were to my criticisms. For example did he feel intimidated and afraid as was alleged. In essence
I was cross examining on what was hearsay.A somewhat difficult task.
Mark Fischer, as a
Prentis loyalist, refused to listen to any mention of the reasons why I had
criticised Terry publicly. To him they
were irrelevant. Nonetheless during the disciplinary hearing it emerged that I
hadn’t been given notes of the original investigation and other discrepancies. These were also disregarded.
Because I secretly taped
the meeting I was able to show how I had been hampered in my ability to put
forward a defence by the way that the complaint had been made.
However the twist is that
although I was required to appeal by November 1st last
year, the appeal hearing has still not been heard 7 months later. The original decision has effectively been abandoned. The reason is not hard to work out. How can someone make a complaint on behalf
of someone else when that person isn’t willing to complain themselves?The unfairness is clear even to such a died
in the wool bureaucrat as Beth Bickerstaffe (the daughter-in-law of previous
UNISON General Secretary Ron Bickerstaffe).
Tony Jones, a South-Eastern regional official who was my investigator - he is also a right-wing Labour councillor!
So the net result is that
I am still a member of UNISON with full membership rights! However the original
injustice has not been remedied. Stan
was betrayed by UNISON’s full time officials.
They failed to do their job which is to defend the right of a member to
hold and express his opinions.
The charges against Stan from his employer were laughable:
1. That, in attending a counter
demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament on the 26th March 2018, you
knowingly increased the possibility of being challenged about your views and subsequently
proceeded to express views that were in breach of the Council’s Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion Policy and the Council’s Code of Conduct.
2. That you made inappropriate comments which were
subsequently circulated on social media which are deemed to be insensitive and
likely to be offensive and potentially in breach of the Equality Act 2010
and/or the Council’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy.
Terry could find nothing wrong in these
charges which were a direct challenge to an employee’s right to attend a demonstration
and a flagrant breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human
Rights relating to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Any full-time
official who doesn’t understand that such a dismissal is almost certainly going
to be unfair and outside what is called the band of reasonable responses should
either be retrained or dismissed. It is clear that Terry's decision was taken on political grounds. Terry’s right-wing politics should not
be allowed to interfere with his work which is representing union members.
Run by its Officials for its Officials UNISON's General Secretary
Dave Prentis knowingly allowed Union resources
to be used to get himself elected
One thing is certain - Prentis will certainly miss Linda Perks - who faithfully did his bidding, rules notwithstanding
On March 26th, as Labour’s local election campaign
got underway, as part of the false anti-Semitism campaign against Jeremy
Corbyn, various Zionist organisations organised their first ever ‘anti-racist’
demonstration, outside Parliament.
On the recent NHS demonstration
A counter demonstration was mounted by Jewish
Voice for Labour supported by Labour Against the Witchhunt (LAW) and other
groups. One of the demonstrators was Stan Keable, the Secretary of LAW.
Stan got into a conversation about the
Holocaust, in the course of which Stan stated that the Holocaust wasn’t only
caused by anti-Semitism (a statement of the obvious – anti-Semitism has existed
long before the Holocaust) and that the Zionist movement had collaborated with
the Nazis in the period leading up to the Holocaust.
Mark Fischer - a Prentis loyalist who chaired the disciplinary panel
One of the wing members of the Panel
Linda Crowther - one of the wing members of the Panel - silent throughout
Unknown to Stan his conversation had secretly been recorded and before long it was
placed on social media. This resulted in headlines in papers like The Standard and the Jewish
Chronicle. The next day local Tory
MP, Greg Hands sent out a tweet demanding action against Stan and Steve Cowan,
leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, where Stan was an employee, was only
too happy to oblige.
Stan was promptly
suspended and in May I represented Stan at his disciplinary hearing, the result
of which was that he was dismissed.As a
lay representative from Brighton and Hove I should not, have had to represent
Stan but when Stan approached UNISON’s London Regional Organiser, Steve Terry
for support he received none.
Maggie Ferncombe - London Regional Secretary and a fitting successor to Linda Perks
Terry’s advice was that
Stan should plead guilty.In a letter of
May 8th Terry advised Stan that:
‘the course that you
should take is to indicate that you regret any offence caused by your remarks
and plead mitigating circumstances.’
A supporter of Progress,
Terry should have declared a conflict of interest between his right-wing views
and those of Stan Keable. His own prejudices rendered him incapable of seeing
that there was only one issue, namely freedom of speech and the right of free
assembly of workers. Rights guaranteed under Articles 10 and 11 of the European
Convention of Human Rights. Terry however is a typical UNISON bureaucrat,
completely incapable of comprehending such issues.
On the recent NHS demonstration in Brighton
The two main charges laid
against Stan were:
1. That, in attending a counter
demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament on the 26th March 2018, you
knowingly increased the possibility of being challenged about your views and
subsequently proceeded to express views that were in breach of the Council’s Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion Policy and the Council’s Code of Conduct (‘Working with
integrity’ and ‘Working with the media’).
2. That you made inappropriate comments
which were subsequently circulated on social media which are deemed to be
insensitive and likely to be offensive and potentially in breach of the
Equality Act 2010 and/or the Council’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
Policy.
Steve Terry could find
nothing wrong in disciplining workers for expressing their views.
It takes something for Jon Lansman's blog to accuse someone of ballot rigging!
Clearly these charges
were a threat to all workers. The idea that by ‘causing offence’ Stan
was guilty of a disciplinary offence is outrageous. The right to free speech is meaningless if all
you have the right to do is to utter platitudes. Giving offence is integral to
freedom of speech unless you are
inciting people to racial or other forms of hatred (i.e. hurting or insulting
someone on the basis of an unalterable characteristic (age, disability etc.). Stan
was doing none of these things. He was criticising Zionism. See
picket outside UNISON Executive protesting at the attempt to rig the General Secretary election
picket of UNISON's Executive meeting
Of course Terry was
unconcerned by such matters. It is doubtful that anything bar the size of his
remuneration is of any interest to him. It was not surprising that Terry, who
is not used to criticism from members, complained to his boss, Maggie Ferncombe,
the London Regional Secretary with whom I have crossed swords when she was the
South-East Regional Secretary.
On June 4th I was
called to an investigation hearing conducted by 2 more officials, Gail Adams and Tony Jones, who is himself a Labour councillor in
Reading! I have already published
the interview and youcan read the whole interview here or you can listen to the tape of the
interview here. Suffice to say that the outcome of the investigation was as
I predicted.I was charged on 3 counts:
My defence, that the
principle conceded by UNISON in the case of Stan Keable was going to be used by
other Councils to attack the rights of other workers has come to pass. Paul
Jonson, an anti-social officer for Dudley Council has
just been suspended for attending a picket outside right-wing Labour MP Ian
Austen’s office and putting a post on Facebook which described Israel as a ‘racist endeavour.’
On Monday 8th October I was called
to a disciplinary hearing to face 3 charges.
i.That I had engaged
in disrespectful or intimidating behaviour, or had exposed Steve Terry to
didicule, embarrassment or contempt and I had violated his dignity.
ii.That I hadn’t
maintained strict confidentiality over the kangaroo court procedures adopted
against me.
iii.That I had broken,
disobeyed etc. union rules.
Those hearing my case –Chair Mark Fischer, Linda
Crowther and Maggie Cook of the National Executive Council, were clearly not
happy with the fact that I had secretly recorded
the investigation hearing. Union bureaucrats and their servants are always
happiest when they can operate in the dark so the first thing that happened
when we began was that everyone had to place their phone in a tray which was placed
out side the room. Unfortunately this trick doesn’t appear to have worked as my
phone had no difficulty picking up what took place and the transcript can be
seen here!
Presenting officer Gail Adams CBE was most offended by my
suggestion that the hearing was a ‘stitch-up’. She emphasised that if I had
argued that someone else had put my blog post up or had had access to my blog
then she would have been more than willing to acquite me of the charges.
However Gail entirely missed the point. It was not that I denied
what I had said but that I justified it as being necessary in the
circumstances.The real crime in this
case was not what I had written about that miserable union bureaucrat Steve
Terry but what he had done to a union member.
I demonstrated beyond all doubt that there is no redress for union members when they
are sold out and betrayed by the union leadership. Back came the parroted
response that I had broken ‘the rules’ by subjecting Terry to ridicule,
contempt etc.I have to say that I have
no respect for someone who is willing to sacrifice a union member’s right to
free speech for the sake of the ‘rules’.To me Terry is contemptible. Certainly I had not intimidated him, how
could I? By speaking on the phone?But
then the charge is that I may have
exposed Terry to ‘ridicule, embarrassment
or contempt.’If the truth be told
then it is indeed ridiculous to behave as Terry did. Terry unfortunately shows
no signs of being embarrassed and as for contempt, surely that is the proper
reaction to a union official and Labour councillor who betrays his membership?As for violating the dignity of Terry, well
that assumes he had any to begin with.
The actual complaint was made byMaggie Ferncombe, the London Regional Secretary who I had an encounter
with when she fulfilled the same role in the South East. Clearly this presented
me with a problem since the person who I had allegedly affronted, Steve Terry,
was not available for cross-examination. This is the basis of part of my
appeal, I had apparently humiliated etc. someone who is not giving evidence and
is unavailable.The relevant part of the
cross-examination is below, although you can look at the full transcript here:
Just imagine, in a court of law, you are accused of insulting,
intimidating etc. someone and then that person doesn’t give evidence but
someone who talked to him does. This is UNISON’s idea of justice. As you can
see I made Maggie Ferncombe, the London Regional Secretary and a fitting
successor to Linda Perks (see below). In essence she knew nothing.
TG:
[54:00] You made the complaint about me?
MF: I
did
TG: ...
and yet the obvious thing would have been for him to have made the complaint.
Would it not?
MF: I
can’t speak for Steve.
TG:
But you spoke to him.
MF: I
can’t speak for Steve whether it’s obvious or not for him to make a complaint.
What I can say is that Steve raised it with me because of the subject matter.
He believed that it was an issue that I needed to be aware of, that there was a
potential, most regional organisers will come to me if they think there’s an
issue that the press may or may not be interested in, because we must be
prepared to have a response. He raised it with me and I then read your blog and
once I had read your blog that is when I decided I would make a complaint.
TG:
Can you enlighten us as to why he did not make a complaint?
MF: I
don’t know.
TG:
You spoke to him but you have no idea why, you did not ask him?
MF:
No.
TG:
You weren’t interested?
MF:
No.
TG:
You did not invite him to make a complaint?
MF:
No
TG:
You did not think it was necessary for him to make a complaint?
MF: I
think that was down to the member of staff (TG: clearly) I took my
responsibilities as a senior manager of the region to determine that I didn’t
think this was appropriate, I thought it was outside of our norms fact
TG: I
realise that
MF:
and I took the decision to make the complaint. And in fact I informed Steve
that I had made the complaint.
TG:
But Steve had the right to make the complaint if he was aggrieved. Did he not?
MF:
All members of staff have the right to make a complaint.
TG:
So you have no idea, on the basis of your relationship with him, why he chose
not to make a complaint?
MF:
(after some considerable delay) I can only say that it is highly highly unusual
in my experience for a member of staff to make a complaint about a member.
TG:
Well maybe this case is maybe highly unusual so it wouldn’t be exceptional?
MF: I
can’t speak for Steve.
TG:
What was the nature of your conversation with ST?
MF: I
just explained that he said that there was an issue that was happening in that particular
branch, regarding a member and that he was going to be advising and that he thought
that I needed to be aware of it on the basis that it might attract interest
from the press and therefore we might be contacted as have most other of my
regional organisers over the years when there has been an issue going on with a
member of the branch that the press might be interested in. So that we were
prepared.
TG:
The charges against me today are ... that I was disrespectful, intimidating, I
exposed him to ridicule, embarrassment and contempt and it violated his
dignity. If we go through those. Did he say that I disrespected him?
MF: I
did not have a great deal of conversation regarding how Steve felt regarding
the blog at all.
TG:
So you weren’t curious as to how he felt?
MF:
Steve didn’t offer how he felt when I had a conversation with him. Steve
offered that there was an issue I needed to be aware of in one of our branches
that I would need to be prepared for should the media decide to
TG:
Sorry he didn’t come to you and say ‘I’m
feeling intimidated as a result of the behaviour of Mr Greenstein?’
MF:
No.
TG:
Did he say that he felt ridiculed or embarrassed or felt that I held him in
contempt?
MF:
No.
TG:
Did he say that I had violated his dignity?
MF:
No.
TG:
So would you agree that these charges are entirely speculative? That they have
no basis or foundation and are not the subject of an allegation.
MF:
No, I don’t agree with that.
TG:
But nonetheless he did not make any complaint as to this nature did he?
MF:
No but the charges talk about conduct which may and I believe your conduct
TG:
So it may have exposed him but there is no evidence to suggest that it did
expose him
MF:
Well I haven’t really done an investigation into what...
The Chair, Mark Fischer, who is part of the Prentis right-wing of
the union, was not happy with my cross-examination. This favourite phrase was ‘Let’s stick to the facts.’ On one
occasion I was forced to respond that:
TG:WellI’m
giving you the facts. You may not like them but I can’t give you any others!
Appendix 2 of the UNISON rule book has been written with the
express purpose of protecting unelected union officials from their own
members.As I repeatedly emphasised
during the hearing there is no redress or accountability of union officials and
that is the real crime in this case but of course no charges were ever brought
or contemplated being brought against Terry because the whole process was in
the hands of UNISON officials.
What my case demonstrates is the democratic
deficit in UNISON.UNISON is not a left-wing union. In the past 8
years, at a time of massive cuts in local government, it has failed to defend
its members’ jobs, conditions or pay. Indeed the union officials have fought
against any attempts to take action. Prentis is infamous for his lack of a backbone.
Despite the fact that UNISON has good policy
on Palestine and supports BDS it has also supported the false ‘anti-Semitism’
campaign.
It is ironic that the Executive Officer who
was responsible for my case was Beth Bickerstaffe, the daughter-in-law of a
previous General Secretary, the late Rodney Bickerstaffe and before you ask I
am sure that the appointment process was open, transparent and fair! The irony
lies in the fact that Rodney Bickerstaffe, who was a supporter of Palestine, when
he spoke at a PSC AGM attacked the use of false accusations of anti-Semitism
against supporters of Palestine.This
understanding seems to have disappeared from his successors..
That is what the actions of Terry are about.He is a fulsome supporter of the idea that
support for the Palestinians is ‘anti-Semitic’ and in particular criticism of
Zionism. That is why Stan was abandoned and that is why I was subject to a
bogus ‘investigation’ the outcome of which was inevitable.
I was also charged with a breach of
confidentiality and although I was technically guilty I argued that in order to
bring the greater crime, Terry’s treachery, to light it was necessary to
publicise his crimes. However in the eyes of my accusers this defence carried
no weight.
I made it clear that in the event of being
found guilty, I had no intention of pleading mitigation as I had done nothing
wrong. I was sentenced to the maximum possible punishment (bar expulsion) which
was 3 years suspension with loss of membership rights.
When UNISON
Officials Broke UNISON’s Election Rules
A fitting farewell to the ever loyal Linda Perks
As London Regional Secretary Linda Perks was Dave Prentis's Fixer - Union rulers were there to be broken
Compare
this case with the breaking rules which occurred during the 2015 election for a
General Secretary. The culprit was the London Regional Secretary for Linda
Perks. Perks held a briefing, of which this is a recording for Regional
Organisers at UNISON’s Greater London Regional Office. Those attending were
paid UNISON staff, attending in work time.
In
clear contravention of the election procedures, which instruct staff that they
should not in work time “carry out any activities
intended or likely to … …affect the election or candidature of any person“,
Perks gave detailed instructions to staff about campaigning for Prentis. She made
it clear that she was speaking as a manager to staff by repeatedly referring
them to Regional Managers.
“You clearly cannot be caught
out saying ‘vote for Dave'” she says, and warns
staff to be careful that, if there are witnesses to conversations in which they
are lobbying for Dave Prentis to be sure that they are “friendly witnesses.” She names the official in whose
(UNISON) office Dave Prentis’ election leaflets will be kept but advises staff
not to mention this by email.
This
was unequivocal evidence of the most blatant disregard for UNISON Rules on the
part of the Greater London Regional Office. Paid officials joke about using the
name of the Regional Convenor to justify distributing election leaflets for
Dave Prentis – and about how to distract branches which they describe as “the opposition.” This is the same office that I came into conflict with.
The case eventually wound up with
the Union Certification Officer who confirmed that Unison broke the election rules.
See for example
In her ruling
the Assistant Certification Officer, Mary Stacey, found:
3. ‘that the Union breached paragraph 51 of
the General Secretary 2015 Election Procedures ("the Election
Procedures")in that the Union's
funds, property and resources were impermissibly used to campaign for a
particular candidate (Mr Dave Prentis) by reason of the following matters
(2) At
a meeting of all Greater London Regional Staff held at Congress House at 2pm 21
October 2015, during work time the Regional Secretary of the London Region
openly campaigned for Mr Prentis re-election for General Secretary and directed
her staff to campaign for Mr Prentis during working time, and was assisted and
supported by her Regional Management Team.
109the impermissible use of UNISON resources by
Ms Perks by using a workplace meeting during work time to promote Mr Prentis as
a candidate and belittle all the others, and constitutes campaigning.
138. In
summary, the meeting was used by the Regional Secretary, openly during work time
and with the support of her RMT to campaign for Mr Prentis' re-election. She
instructed her staff also to campaign for Mr Prentis in defiance of the
election Procedures and directed them to report to their line manager within
her RMT
139. It is
apparent from the transcript that Ms Perks knew that she was breaching UNISON
rules in the meeting and seeking to enlist the collusion of her staff.
143. It is
clear that leaflets in support of Mr Prentis were to be covertly stored at the
Greater London Regional office in breach of the Election Procedures. Ms Perks
repeatedly tells her staff not to leave an email trail about using the Greater
London Regional office as a distribution hub for the leaflets:
145. In
response to a question Ms Perks tells her staff that they should tell the
members to lie about having received campaign material in support of Mr Prentis
from full time officers and instead: "They
got them from the regional convener is all
.you need to tell them, they got them from the regional
convener or the regional convener team is perfectly fine" she said. It would have been a lie as the Greater London
Regional staff are not regional conveners
154. No matter
how many times one re-reads the transcript, the shock does not diminish. It is
flagrant: Ms Perks' tone is not just confident and swaggering in so openly
breaking the rules, but chilling in its brazenness and demonstration of
unchecked power.
Linda Perks was suspended as it was an
obvious and deliberate breach of the union’s election rules. It is difficult to
think of a case that was more deserving of summary dismissal than this one. Perks
was found however given a final warning. As Ms Stacey found:
213. On the
conclusion of the internal disciplinary process she was given a final written
warning and received a disciplinary transfer away from the Greater London Region.
At the time of the hearing the Applicants had assumed that having been compulsorily
moved away from the Greater London Region she would now be based in another
part of the country. It emerged during the hearing that she had moved to the
Union's newly refurbished head office approximately 1/2 mile from the London
Regional Office retaining her grade and status. There was no evidence as to her
job title or job description at the hearing. After the hearing both sides
supplied further information. Normally evidence submitted after the hearing
would not be admitted, but since all sides seemed keen for the ACO to have a
complete picture and the evidence is not disputed, I record that Ms Perks now
has the title of National Secretary and is engaged on "strategic
projects."
In
other words the disciplinary process was carried out with a nod and a wink.
What obviously happened was that Linda Perks agreed to a disciplinary process
whereby it was guaranteed that she would not be dismissed and nor would she
suffer any financial or other penalty. She was moved out of the Greater London
Region, half the mile down the road. This is the contempt union rules are held
in when those who make them break them.
Initially the Union’s officials and
Prentis even denied that the tape recording of the meeting was genuine. They
alleged it had been ‘tampered with’.
As the Mary Stacey found:
218. On the
same day (11.1.16.) the Union's President and Vice President issued an email with
a wide distribution to the NEC....
"Dear
Colleague,
As you know a
number of serious allegations have been made against our union in London. The
complaints are being investigated.
Whilst it is
not our practice to comment on an ongoing investigation on this occasion we
believe there is one aspect that warrants public disclosure. This can be done
without compromising the rights of those involved in this matter. The complaint
presented by Jon Rogers relies heavily on an anonymous recording. Given the
seriousness of this tape the union commissioned independent forensic expert
report of the full recording. The Presidential team and the Trustees of the
union now have the full report from the Audio Forensic Service.
The forensic
analysis was undertaken by an accredited audio specialist and the company is
used by the High Court for audio evidence. The report clearly states that
"the probability of tampering is
exceptionally high". On a scale of 1(low) to 5 (high), the Independent
Expert rates the tape as 5/5.
219. This is
quite an extraordinary email, especially given that UNISON accept the legitimacy
of the tape. In his evidence Mr McKenzie said he did not know about the forensic
analysis. If it indeed exists" it was not passed to the Investigating
Officer, contrary to the assertion in the email. It begs so many questions:
Does this report exist? If so, where is it? Why wasn't it given to'Mr McKenzie
if it so conclusively demonstrated that the tape was some kind of fake? Why
didn't Mr McKenzie mention it in his report or ask to see it when he must have
known about it and received the President's email? Why send the email? Mr
McKenzie was clear in his evidence that he had always found the tape persuasive
and the Union has conceded its accuracy and authenticity.
220. The
President's email is thus a classic example of an attempt by the victors to write
the history (regardless of accuracy) and denigrate those whom they see as their
vanquished adversaries.
Unfortunately Ms Stacey went on to find
that because there was no proof that similar behaviour had occurred outside
London, the result should stand. This was an amazing position to take.If there has been a flagrant breach of
election rules in one part of the country then that should have resulted in an
inexorable inference that the whole election was corrupt. It is certain that
Prentis had other union officials doing the same around the country. The fact
that no other tape recordings surfaced is immaterial. As Stacey found:
226. ... there
was no specific evidence to find that abuses such as occurred in the Greater
London Region were occurring in other parts of the country. Witnesses and
evidence has not been presented to me to make such primary findings.
Stacey’s finding over the ‘penalty’
that Perks suffered is damning and shows the utter cynicism of UNISON’s
officials when those breaching the rules happen to be those in control of the
union.
257. ...the
disciplinary sanction applied to the Greater London Regional Secretary for her
actions ... is revealing. She has remained an employee at the same pay,
seniority and level, moving to an office approximately half a mile from her previous
office. Although she has received a final written warning, ... she remains a
very senior employee enjoying all the fruits of high office and long service
based in the Union's prestigious Head Office working on undefined
"strategic" projects. Remarkable clemency and lenience in the circumstances
and perhaps not a deterrent penalty to decourager les autres.
295. The
subsequent leisurely disciplinary proceedings of Ms Perks and outcome do not
inspire confidence or serve as a deterrent to future over zealous paid
officials. Some might think the move to National Secretary in Head Office on
unspecified strategic projects retaining all pay and benefits represents reward
rather than punishment, although she has also endured the imposition of a final
written warning
There
is a good account of what happened in respect of Perks in the 853 Blog which serves Greenwich and the
surrounding area. Greenwich Labour candidate selected despite being
condemned by judge. In September Perks retired from her
position in UNISON. At her retirement function Dave Prentis spoke about the debt that he felt to her: “Absolutely
packed house to thank Linda Perks, one of our longest serving regional
secretaries. We will all miss her” For once Prentis was telling the
truth.He will certainly miss his
faithful Perks.
