All bloggers are, to some extent, self-obsessed, and I do tend to refer to the decision of the Assistant Certification Officer issued in 2017 from time to time (which is immodest as it does refer to me a fair bit). The decision had, at the time, something for everyone. UNISON trumpeted the fact that there was no order to rerun the General Secretary election, whereas the claimants (myself included) focused on the findings of proven wrongdoing. (For the avoidance of doubt – none of that wrongdoing was on the part of the current General Secretary, by my apology to whom (context to which is provided by paragraph 223 of the decision) I stand).
One of the orders, a request for which from some of the claimants was withdrawn during the hearing, and which was not therefore made, was for a ban on UNISON staff campaigning in future elections. The Assistant Certification Officer (ACO) noted that her consequent refusal to make such an order meant that it was for UNISON to decide what the role of staff should be in future elections (see paragraph 8 of her decision). In paragraph 311 the ACO recommended that the Union have a “thorough internal discussion and debate” on this point and then draft “clear, unambiguous and uniformly understood rules” as a result of that debate.
Although there has never (yet) been a transparent and inclusive debate within the trade union about recommendations of the Assistant Certification Officer, there were changes reflected in the 2020 General Secretary election procedures when compared with previous versions, paragraph 6 of Appendix 1.B of which now states that “given the nature of all of the roles in the Member Liaison Unit, the Assistant General Secretary Regions and Governance, the Director of the Executive Office the Director of Legal Services and National Manager for Regions and Governance, whose duties include functions relating to this election, these staff members will be excluded from campaigning in the elections on behalf of a particular candidate or candidates in or out of working hours.” The listing of these roles, holders of which may not campaign – even in their own time – is a novelty in this General Secretary election compared to previous such elections.
The fact that the posts listed in this paragraph include the post previously held by the campaign organiser for the successful incumbent candidate in the last election is, for those few who will notice, a startling disavowal of past practice in UNISON and an admission, in retrospect, that the way things had been done in the past had been wrong (as described in paragraph 298 of the ACO decision, which includes the only reference in that decision to Mrs Merton).
Not – of course – that everything which had been done in the past had been wrong. At paragraph 55 of the ACO decision reference is made to the identity of the former Head of the Member Liaison Unit (MLU), who had, at that point, ten years’ experience in running UNISON elections. At paragraph 115, the ACO finds evidence of the former Head of MLU “applying the rules in an even-handed and fearless manner” unafraid to stand up to the campaign team of the incumbent General Secretary, even though it was led by a “powerful and influential” Assistant General Secretary. It was only when the then Head of MLU was on leave that, as the ACO found at paragraph 131, pressure from “Team Dave” and a more senior UNISON official persuaded Electoral Reform Services to issue “revised guidance” on the point at issue.
The “even-handed and fearless” former Head of the MLU has now moved on, leaving a high standard of integrity for her successor to live up to.
It is a matter of public record that the new Head of the MLU is the former Head of the Labour Party Governance and Legal Unit, a matter which has given rise to some controversy in recent months, following the leaking of an internal Labour Party report (full disclosure – the same individual has been reported as having said some quite rude things about a rally of Labour Party members in Brighton addressed by your humble blogger in 2016).
In the spirit of being helpful to all those with a role in relation to the UNISON General Secretary election, it’s worth pointing out that those who join our trade union from our political party need to be aware that they are in a somewhat different environment.
It’s not just that any misconduct in UNISON elections can readily be subject to external scrutiny, but there is compelling evidence that there are those within our trade union willing to blow the whistle on malpractice – and there are people to whom they can blow that whistle who can be relied upon to act.
Particularly after the shocking revelations of misconduct by the former Greater London Regional Secretary in the last General Secretary election, UNISON members are entitled to expect that this election will be conducted fairly and that – in particular – those holding the posts identified in paragraph 6 of Appendix 1.B of the election procedures will not allow their personal views to influence their professional conduct.
A lot of people are watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment