As I have
mentioned before, the vicissitudes of life (and the perennial reorganisations
which are one of the forms those vicissitudes take for those of us with the
mixed fortune to be local government workers) find me working these days in
Human Resources.
I don’t blog
about my job, but in that job I have to be aware of developments in employment
law, and therefore of the gathering body of
case law that warns employers against over-hasty suspension of employees.
The Court of
Appeal has held that; “Whilst
views generally might reasonably differ as to whether suspension is a
"neutral act", the view of the courts is that it is not” and has emphasised “the need to avoid a "knee jerk"
reaction, with suspension as the default position.”
This case law
refers (of course) to the employment relationship. Employment law cannot simply
be “read across” into (for example) the law as it impacts upon disciplinary
procedures of trade unions, or political parties.
On the one
hand, someone’s job is central to their life and ability to earn a living, and
so the law relating to their employment ought (you would hope) to be careful to
protect their rights. Perhaps therefore you would expect a more cautious
approach to suspension from employment than in some other walks of life.
On the other
hand, if you are suspended from employment, you continue to be paid. Whilst it
is possible that an unjustified suspension could amount to a breach of
contract, it is also true that the contract of employment can continue through
a suspension and – if all goes well from the employee’s point of view – out the
other side.
Whilst a
suspended employee is denied the opportunity to work, they nevertheless continue to be paid.
The basic reciprocity of the employment relationship (I am available for work.
You pay me) is not terminated simply by the act of suspension.
However, when
an elected representative in a trade union or a political party is suspended,
there is an immediate impact in that they cease – in effect – to hold the
position to which they have been elected (or selected). The union (or party) still takes their subscriptions but it has removed them completely from the role from which they have been suspended.
Because our
membership of a trade union or political party is not circumscribed with the
same range of legal protections which our movement has fought for over centuries
for our rights as workers, there is -potentially – inordinate scope for
suspension of union or Party office holders to be used inappropriately – to seek
to resolve political differences by administrative means.
And sometimes this happens.
I am
more familiar than I might wish with UNISON’s disciplinary processes. These
limit the power of the National Executive to suspend someone from office to a maximum
of 60 days (excepting cases of alleged financial irregularities).
This is a reasonable
time limit. It enables the organisation to take a little time to consider a
case in which discipinary action may be required, without permanently removing
an elected official from a position to which they have been elected by the
membership.
Unfortunately,
Labour Party rules permit suspensions to drag on (and on) – which amounts to
the imposition of a disciplinary sanction in advance of any hearing or of the
opportunity for the individual to advance a defence.
I do not mean
to make direct comment on a suspension announced
today by the Labour Party – but, having recently seen a comrade return to
Party membership following a suspension which lasted for more than two years –
I think that the need for some time limit on the power of the Labour Party NEC
to suspend members (as proposed
by Brighton Pavilion CLP at 2017 Conference) is urgently required.
Of course, if I
were going to say something about today’s suspension, it wouldn’t be something
I would want to say on this blog. I try to avoid swearing here.
No comments:
Post a Comment