Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Apology to Dave Prentis

Apology from Jon Rogers to Dave Prentis

In December of last year, prior to the conclusion of the election for the post of General Secretary of Unison, I made various comments about Dave Prentis, General Secretary of Unison, who has now been re-elected for a further term, on social media and in other forums. 

I accept fully that Mr Prentis has "clean hands" in relation to the meeting of Unison staff in the Greater London Region which took place on 21 October 2015. I wish to make clear that I have no grounds to believe that Mr Prentis sanctioned or condoned any misuse of Unison staff resources at that meeting. 

Further, I also wish to make clear that Mr Prentis has done nothing, to my knowledge, that warrants his disqualification as a candidate or gives grounds for the election to be re-run.

By making this statement, I apologise unreservedly to Mr Prentis for the concern and distress I have caused him and for any negative impact my words may have had upon his or Unison’s reputation.

I am happy to confirm that I have provided Mr Prentis with undertakings which he has accepted that I shall make no statements which are at variance with this apology.

I recognise that Unison’s interests are best served by everyone giving their full support to the investigation currently being undertaken by Roger Mackenzie, Unison’s Assistant General Secretary into the circumstances surrounding the 21 October meeting. I recognise that there should be confidentiality around that investigation and, whilst it is ongoing, I have confirmed that I will refrain from commenting on the investigation or from circulating any material concerning these matters. No one should prejudge the outcome of the investigation.  Mr Mackenzie must be allowed to conclude the investigation without further speculation, interference or distraction.

I am also happy to confirm that I will abide by and respect the outcome of the investigation as required by Unison’s Rule Book as determined by the members at Conference.




1 comment:

John Flynn said...

Jon I have still not seen any acceptance from yourself that by backing your candidate you allowed too many choices on the ballot paper. Your man came last but you wanted everyone else to withdraw in his favour. Roger Bannister was always the better candidate and sadly I do see your view changing in five years time. Is there no recognition from you and your colleagues that you read this ballot completely wrong.