I am being wilfully lazy and not blogging further information about UNISON National Conference just yet. I will however publish the following brief report which I have circulated to UNISON branches in the Greater London Region;
The first meeting of the newly elected National Executive Council(NEC) was scheduled to take place at the close of National Delegate Conference on Friday afternoon.
This meeting is chaired each year, at the outset, by the General Secretary, since the former President and Vice-Presidents have ceased to hold office and the main item of business is the election of a new “Presidential Team”.
At the commencement of the meeting, General Secretary Dave Prentis noted the presence of John McDermott from the Yorkshire and Humberside Region. John had been a candidate in the NEC election and had secured 4,670 votes. His opponent had secured 4,577 votes but had been declared elected.
Dave requested – but did not instruct – John to leave the meeting. John pointed out (quite reasonably in my view) that he had won the election and was entitled to be present. In response to John’s refusal to comply with his request, Dave invited Deputy General Secretary Keith Sonnet to make a statement.
Keith announced that the meeting of the NEC would be adjourned until 8 July at Mabledon Place and members of the NEC left the meeting room without having elected a President or either Vice President.
I have queried the power used by officers to adjourn the NEC meeting as it was clear to me that there were other options to enable the election of the Presidential Team. I will report to branches on any response. Given the highly unusual circumstances in which the Independent Scrutineer has declared as elected a candidate who did not win their election it may well be that the Union will not be able to resolve this difficult question without the intervention of the Certification Officer. I will report to branches further as information comes to light.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Is there a dispute about John's elegibility to take part in the election?
Which rule was quoted to justify removing John from the NEC election?
What options were clear to you as being available???
In order to the above three comments my answers are;
(1) Dave Prentis could have instructed, rather than requested, John to leave. John would then, I imagine, have left under protest given the potential consequences of disobeying an instruction even if it is unreasonable.
Alternatively, the NEC could have filed into the neighbouring room (which was empty) and the officers could have made clear that John was not invited to enter the room. It is unthinkable that John would have sought to force entry in those circumstances.
Given that the General Secretary has a power to act "between meetings" (the use of which to adjourn a meeting is problematic) and that the failure to elect a Presidential Team has put us in breach of Rule E, I do think that it is a shame that these other options were not employed.
(2) No Rule was quoted to justify John's having been withdrawn. I do not think that either paragraph 11 of the NEC election procedures or Schedule C.7 or the Rule Book can be read as providing such justification. Technically, the justification is that UNISON is abiding by the report from the Independent Scrutineer (and in law this is a pretty compelling justification) - it is for this reason that I cannot see how this matter can now be resolved without a reference to the Certification Officer.
(3) The question must relate to the fact that, for a period between the point at which John was eligible for nomination (in accordance with the election procedures) and the point at which, having been elected, he is eligible to take up his seat (in accordance with the Rule Book) he had been dismissed and was, for a period, unemployed. It seems obvious to me that someone acting (or intending to act) on behalf of UNISON must have advised ERS that John was thereby to be withdrawn from the election. I do not know when, why or by whom this was done but hope to find out.
Sorry Jon, but have I skipped a chapter as I don't understand why a candidate who secures the most votes isn't elected...to quote a line from Eastenders...Wot's goin' on???!!
Re point 3, I doubt he'll win on this within the union. There's some loophole somewhere, no doubt, that will justify calling the meeting off.
I do wonder, though, what the point of this action was - as surely it's simply served to marginalise some on the NEC, and I am sure you'll be in no doubt that the man expecting to leave the week "crowned" President would be a bit brassed off with all this?! Was there no other means available to make the point?
Do you think John McDermott's actions in this were reasonable and should be supported?
Having read John McDermott's account of this matter, I have to say I very much doubt your view that if instructed he would have left the meeting. He does seem rather determined.
I don't see how John can expect to be on the NEC he became unemployed during the election process so was therefore ineligible, the union pays for the elections to be run by the electoral reform society to run the election to ensure it is within the law, it's clear to me that if you become unemployed then you are not eligible which is the legal advice received
If this had happened to a candidate not of the same political persusaion would you have the same view? I doubt it
I certainly don't have the same political views as John! I am a Labour Party member.
I don't think that it is at all clear that the rules require that John should have been ruled out.
The election procedures deal with eligibility at the time of nomination and Schedule C to the Rule Book with eligibility at the time of election (consistent with Rule C on membership).
There simply is no Rule which says that a candidate who becomes unemployed during an election having been a full member at the time of nomination and becoming a full member once more before their election must be disqualified.
Therefore if someone from UNISON told the ERS to withdraw John from the election (and ERS would not have known to do so unless this happened) then that person was interpreting the Rule Book.
The interpretation of the Rules is a matter for the NEC and - if you scroll back through this blog to my report from the June NEC meeting - you'll see that the matter of John's status was raised and no information given about any relevant interpretation of the Rules.
I would be unhappy in any case in which the winning candidate did not take up their seat and, given the constraints placed upon UNISON resolving this matter ourselves by the law, I would always support a reference to the Certification Officer in such circumstances.
To let lie a set of circumstances in which the losing candidate is declared elected cannot be right.
Sounds like a mess that only an independent third party can resolve. The positions are now firmly entrenched!
I agree
So Jon, do you think John McDermott should have gone into the NEC meeting like he did and refuse to leave?
Post a Comment