When I
started this blog, a little over ten years ago, I explained
why I was doing so, and said; “ I
believe that this blog is entirely within UNISON Rules and I don’t intend to
carry any content which attacks our Union. This is not to say that I won’t
publish criticisms of policies or decisions with which I disagree (or
criticisms of me if anyone wants to post them!) This is in accordance with
UNISON Rule B.2.5 which commits the Union to encouraging democratic debate.”
In
more than two thousand posts over the past decade I have occasionally made good
on that promise, to the pleasure
of some readers. I have tried to engage in debate, often publishing critical
comments (even though these are generally anonymous) and have removed or
amended posts in response to criticism where I thought that warranted.
If you are
reading this blog and are offended, or feel that I have said something that is
unjust or incorrect you are welcome to respond and I will publish your response
as a comment (even if it is anonymous) as long as it is not itself unreasonably
offensive or defamatory.
However,
sometimes people may be upset when I publish comments which allege breaches of
UNISON Rules, or suggest that anything we have done falls short of excellence.
They may then pursue other remedies rather than make their criticisms in the
open.
For example;
On 1
December 2015 I alleged a breach of Rules D.8 and E.3.3 and of paragraph 7
of Schedule C to the Rule Book;
On 5 December
2015 I alleged a breach of Rule B.2.2;
On 10
December 2015 I alleged a breach of Rule B.2.5;
On the
following day, I alleged again a breach of Rule B.2.2;
On 14
December 2015 I alleged a breach of Rule B.2.6;
On 17
December 2015 I alleged a breach of Rule B.2.2;
On 2
February 2016 I alleged a breach of Rules B.1.4 and 2.2;
On the
following day I reported an allegation of a breach of Rule B.2.6;
On 10
February 2016 I alleged a breach of Rules B.1.4 and 2.2;
On the
following day I linked to a post which could be read as alleging a breach
of Rule B.1.4;
On 30
March 2016 I alleged a breach of Rule P.2.3.1;
On 23
April 2016 I alleged a breach of Rule B.2.1;
On 11
May 2016 I alleged breaches of Rules B.2.1 and 2.2;
On 18
May 2016 I alleged a breach of Rules B.1.4 and 2.2;
On 20
May 2016 I alleged a breach of Rule B.2.2;
On the
same day I alleged breaches of Rule P.2.3.1 and B.2.2;
On the
following day I alleged a breach of Rule P.17.1 and D.1.1.
These particular posts have been the subject of criticism –
not in comments on this blog (which I would have published) but elsewhere (and
I really cannot
comment about where).
These criticisms were far from the least, or the least harsh,
which you can find if you go back over the past ten years of posts on this
blog. And yet it is these criticisms about which I am being questioned by the
trade union.
It is interesting that these questions (and the decision to
initiate a disciplinary investigation to which they have given rise) have
arisen since UNISON became aware of my complaint to the Certification Officer,
submitted on 27 April 2016 (after I was denied the opportunity to pursue issues
at the April meeting of the National Executive Council (NEC)).
Given that I have spent ten years being scathing online about
my criticisms of various actions (and omissions) by and on behalf of UNISON and
yet it is only now, after I have had recourse to the Certification Officer,
that I am being questioned about some recent (and less scathing) criticisms I
really hope not ever to have to rely upon my legal right not to be subject to unjustified
discipline by my trade union.
You would almost think we (UNISON) had never been here before...
Incidentally, I consider any instruction to remain silent
about the abuse of UNISON’s disciplinary rules in these circumstances to
contravene Rule B.2.2.
If anyone would like a copy of the UNISON Rule Book it is available
online.
No comments:
Post a Comment