This post is to help understand the infographic/picture trying to show what has happened since #Unisongate
first broke on 1 December 2015.
Firstly let me remind the reader that at the time
Unisongate came to light Unison was in the last stages of a general secretary
election
.
There were four candidates. The incumbent, Dave Prentis;
Heather Wakefield; Roger Bannister and John Burgess.
On 1 December 2015
an audio recording appeared of what seems to have been an official Unison
meeting of paid officials in TUC Congress House on 21 October 2015.
The
recording is still online and I recommend you listen to the audio recording to
judge for yourself. http://www.4shared.com/mp3/HTYMDTN-ce/unison.html
The audio tape has rocked the union and all those active
within UNISON who have heard it.
It is important for those listening to note that UNISON paid officials cannot campaign in
worktime as this is a breach of union rules.
The audio recording reveals a disturbing attitude of paid
officials towards UNISON members.
Listening to the audio tape it is clear paid officials have
already been using union resources to support the incumbent general secretary in
getting re-elected and also trying to stop the other three candidates from
getting support.
One of the most
damming comments from one of the senior paid officials is heard
early on in the recording when she says:
“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.”
Many of those believe that the Dave she refers to is indeed
the incumbent general secretary and that she is suggesting by her statement to
her staff that he is aware of the work they have been doing for his campaign.
So
what happened next?
First complaints were sent to the UNISON President from a
number of UNISON members and complaints were also sent to the Returning Officer
(RO), who is an employee of the Electoral Reform Services (ERS), as set out in
the union regulations for the elections.
Many of the complaints were seeking an independent investigation by a respected figure within the Labour movement in order to establish if this alleged malpractice goes beyond UNISON London region to the other 11 regions across UNISON. This has happened before in the GMB where they appointed a QC to conduct an investigation about an allegation in the GMB general secretary election in 2004.
However, UNISON responded 3 December 2015 and appointed a UNISON assistant general secretary (Y) to investigate
instead.
Complainants responded by demanding that it must be someone
outside the Union in order not to compromise the integrity of the
investigation.
On 9 December 2015 at a scheduled NEC meeting, some members
of the UNISON NEC tried to discuss the investigation but were out voted so no discussion was
allowed on the basis that confidentiality must be maintained whilst an internal
investigation was taking place.
The Terms of
Reference for the internal investigation has not been provided to NEC or the complainants.
A few days later the UNISON President issued a statement
saying an accredited audio specialist
had carried out a forensic analysis on the recording and established the
likelihood the tape had been tampered with was high.
Some NEC reps asked for a copy of the Forensic audio report
but their request was denied.
It later came to light that the internal investigation by Y was only into one member of staff
and nothing else.
To date and six months later almost all of the staff who
were in the meeting (21 October 2015) have still not been interviewed and the
outcome of an investigation into one
member of staff has still not been completed.
Who is
the Returning Officer (RO)?
The RO is the person who has to decide if there have been
any serious breaches of legislation or union rules and has the power to decide
if the election result should stand. The RO can order a re-run of the election
if they declare the election result should be null and void.
Under the election procedures any UNISON member can make a
complaint to the RO but had to do so by 11
December 2015.
The RO would respond to all complaints by 15 December 2015.
The RO did not respond to many of the complainants as set
out in the procedures.
The RO decided to announce the general secretary election results
and at the same time announced that he would investigate the complaints and
give his decision in the second week of January 2016.
This was an odd decision because after announcing the
result it would seem strange for the RO to potentially be in a situation of announcing
those same election results declared in December were invalid as a result of
the findings of his investigation.
At this point it is important to note that the role of the RO
is independent from the union.
UNISON had signed a contract with ERS to provide services
for elections, but the role of RO in terms of the scrutineer is set out in
legislation Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act 1992.
Let’s
Recap on what has happened so far.
·
UNISON has refused to organise an independent
investigation to be carried out by a respected figure within the Labour
movement.
·
UNISON has appointed an assistant general
secretary Y to investigate only one
member of staff.
·
UNISON has refused to discuss anything about
the investigation and the role of the RO at two NEC meetings.
·
By the second week of January 2016 the RO
report did not materialise.
·
The RO was not responding to many requests from
complainants about when he was to interview them.
Private
Eye magazine:
Over the course of Unisongate; Private Eye has published four articles. In
their fourth
article they make a number of statements.
Firstly they reveal that the RO is not carrying out an investigation, but has asked
UNISON to carry out the investigation into the complaints.
“As the emails disclose, Roger McKenzie, who is
carrying out the investigation for Unison, is a member of “Team Dave”. Unison
is preparing a report for Mr Lonie, which would enable him to decide if the
election was properly conducted. Unison would then in turn report his decision
back to its members. Thus it appears “Team Dave” is effectively left to
investigate itself! Private Eye “Flexible friends” 16 February
2016.
NEC reps at NEC meeting on 17 February 2015, tried to seek clarification about this claim and
other comments in Private Eye, but their attempts were thwarted by a formal
request to move on to other business.
Secondly they reveal that they have seen “Team Dave” emails
which appear to be the campaign action plans throughout the general secretary
election campaign.
“Team Dave” emails contain over 50 of the most senior Unison paid officials. Five of whom are
the assistant general secretaries and include the UNISON President.
The assistant general secretary Y appointed to investigate had also received the “Team Dave”
emails.
According the Private Eye article the RO had asked UNISON
to investigate UNISON about potential claims of malpractice and breach of union
rules.
A majority of NEC members voted not to discuss this
worrying disclosure.
On 18 February 2016
the RO published his report and whilst a number of complaints were upheld his
view was that the result stands.
What
was UNISON’s response
Two weeks following the publication an email was sent to a
number of UNISON members who had submitted a complaint to the UNISON President.
The email states the response has been authorised by the UNISON President.
The email states, “In light of these independent
findings and ongoing internal investigations we do not consider that a separate
and further enquiry is warranted.”
A number
of UNISON members have written back contesting this response and reiterating
the need for an independent investigation carried out by a respected figure
within the Labour movement.
Conclusions
Many Unison members are contacting #Unisongate to ask about
the outcome of the investigation.
The only report produced is the RO report back in February
this year and it is clear from reading this report that there has been no
independent investigation - only a disciplinary investigation into one member
of staff.
A Simple
demand.
The content of the “Team Dave” emails and the audio
recording brought together reinforce our demand for an independent
investigation to be carried out by a respected figure within the Labour
movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment