Sunday, October 25, 2009

What was that about Rule J?

Apologies to regular readers (Sid and Doris diner) for interrupting an earlier post for food.

I was mentioning inconsistencies in how we - as a Union - have dealt with breaches of Rule J.

Six weeks or so ago I wrote to the Chairs of UNISON's NEC Finance and Labour Link Committees as follows;

"I am writing to you as Chairs of Finance and Labour Link with a copy to the President and relevant officers.

I have been passed a copy of UNISON's submission to the Certification Officer in the case of Bakhsh -v- Unison CO/736T/7/2009.

This discloses at paragraph 25 that, in respect of some particular payments made by the former Glasgow Community Health Branch, our Union has arranged for a sum of £2,184.41 to be transferred from the Affiliated Political Fund into the general funds.

I note also that the document's author has felt it necessary to state at paragraph 26 that "nothing was withheld" from the NEC.

I have been a member of our NEC at the material time and do not immediately recollect the reporting of this transfer of funds to the NEC.

Please may I request that you remind me when this matter was reported to our NEC and arrange for me to be supplied with a copy of the relevant report and/or minute?"

Having not received a written response as at the October meeting of the NEC I repeated my request.

Had I received an answer I could have reported on that (if appropriate).

As it is all I can do is observe that, as an elected member of our NEC, I have not yet had a written answer.

Anyone would think we were concealing evidence of wrongdoing for fear of embarrassing friendly MPs whilst at the same time villifying (or is that castigating) those who make similar errors in favour of a party other than the Labour Party...

No comments: