As diligent
readers of this blog will recollect, UNISON members in Local Government held a
Special Service Group Conference in March at which delegates decided that the
Union should submit a pay claim for an increase from 1 April 2015.
Such a claim
was duly submitted and can be read online
here.
How
seriously did our officials take the decision of our Special Conference? Well,
the letter submitting the pay claim ran to an impressive word count in excess
of 100.
However, if
you compare that to the previous
NJC pay claim you’ll see that ran to over 30 pages. A serious document,
setting out evidence and argument in support of a pay claim shows when we are
serious. A brief letter setting out a demand for more money with only the most
perfunctory justification shows when we are not.
In other
words, the official implementation of the Special Conference decision was
deliberately contemptuous of that decision.
What
happened next? This is what the official
briefing tells us;
“The additional re-opened UNISON pay
claim for NJC workers for 2015/16 was submitted to the employers on 22 April
2015. It demanded that the full-time equivalent Living Wage should be the new
minimum, and an equivalent flat rate increase for all scale points. The
Employers responded stating that they would not consider this new pay claim.
The NJC Committee considered this at their meeting on 12 May, along with the
results of the consultation of members on the content 2016/17 pay claim. The
NJC Committee agreed to refuse to accept the Employers’ response to our 2015/16
claim and to merge the 2015/16 campaign into the 2016/17 pay campaign.”
What on
earth does it mean to say that we “refuse
to accept the Employers’ response to our 2015/16 claim” if we do nothing to
indicate this refusal other than campaign for the next year’s pay rise? That is
a bit like accepting that you won’t be served breakfast and deciding to merge
your desire for breakfast into your ongoing campaign for lunch.
The Salford
City branch deserve congratulation for submitting an Emergency Motion drawing
the necessary conclusion from the employers’ immediate rejection of our pay
claim for 2015, which is that we should threaten a campaign of industrial
action. Delegates might or might not think that this is the right course of
action (bearing in mind the mixed picture across different Regions perhaps).
However, one would hope that delegates would have the opportunity to
participate in that debate.
But no.
The Standing
Orders Committee (SOC) has ruled the Salford Emergency Motion out of order.
There is some confusion as to the reason for this. Salford were told that they
were in breach of Rule O, but delegates at the London Regional briefing were
briefed that the reason the motion was out of order was because it could put
the union in legal jeopardy. Mind you, delegates were briefed at more than one
Regional meeting that Salford had been “spoken to” about this (with the
implication that they had accepted the decision) – which isn’t what the Salford
branch told delegates at the fringe meeting which they themselves had organised
on Saturday evening.
These manoeuvres
are part of a desire from the top that this Conference should be an occasion
for unity after the arguments of the Special Conference.
Unity is a
good thing.
But representing
the interests of our members is what we are for.
Unity is
available on the basis that we fight for the interests of our members.
It is not
available on the basis that we do not.
It is not
available on the basis that officials treat the decisions of our Service Group
Conference with contempt.
No comments:
Post a Comment