On even a cursory reading of the “resolutions” it was clear to me and to anyone else that reads the rule book, that some were seeking to change or extend existing rules or were in conflict with the rule book.
A number also had implications for members of UNISON staff including the General Secretary, who was to be directed “from time to time as may be necessary” by the presidential team, conveniently forgetting that in rule it is only the GS that has the authority to act in between meetings.
It’s also worth noting that when it comes to democratic mandates, the GS was elected by the lay membership on almost twice the turn-out that many NEC members enjoy.
Another gives the presidential team the right to instruct counsel “through the Union’s legal department or such other solicitor as the Presidential Team thinks fit” – potentially a fundamental breach of the Director of Legal Services’ contract of employment and unlawful.
The “resolutions” were sent out by the vice presidents on the Friday before the NEC meeting on the following Wednesday. They came to NEC members without any explanatory notes to give the background to the proposed changes and why they were considered necessary. The moving of the “resolutions” was even less helpful as it took the form of reading out the text that we all had in front of us and nothing more.
On the morning of the NEC we received a further document which contained independent legal advice on the motions, provided by UNISON to the vice presidents through their normal processes. This stated that four out of the six motions were beyond the powers of the NEC. It further stated that if passed, they could expose UNISON to legal proceedings.
This cut no ice with the TFRC faction who knew they could get these motions through by force of numbers and proceeded to do just that. A proposal to defer consideration of the resolutions in light of the legal advice received was voted down. We are now led to believe on social media that the presidential team has sought further legal advice which contradicts that tabled. However that has not been made available to NEC members and anyhow should have been circulated before the debate took place.
With no hint of irony, the preamble to the “resolutions” highlights that UNISON is a “member-led union” at the same time as NEC members on this faction, with Socialist Party support, rode roughshod over lay democracy, voting on a simple majority to alter UNISON rules for their own ends – rules which had been agreed at National Delegate Conference by a two thirds majority of the delegates and which should only have been changed by a conference vote.
But then, these weren’t rule changes – they were just a change in interpretation they claimed, in complete disregard of the legal advice.
However it was the final “resolution” that perhaps shone a light on the cynical motivation behind this. Or is it just coincidence that we have a president from the TFRC faction, currently suspended and subject to disciplinary action by his employer; and this “resolution” sets out the means by which any member holding elected office who is dismissed by their employer can continue both to be a member and to hold office in the union?
Whatever the motivation, this is clearly a change to existing rule which should only be approved by a two thirds majority of our national delegate conference. It is also incredibly badly worded to the extent that it would allow for any member, no matter why they have been dismissed, to continue to hold office in the union and attend every committee that they are a member of, unless or until the NEC decides otherwise.
A blanket right for any dismissed member to continue to hold office at all levels of the union has particularly distressed members of the NEC who have themselves been the victims of serious sexual harassment, bullying and racism in the workplace. Not to mention acts of fraud and dishonesty. It is a travesty and contrary to UNISON aims and values that such individuals will have an unconditional right to hold office in the union after dismissal by their employer.
The debate suggested that this “resolution” would only apply in cases where the member has been subject to a witch-hunt, but that is not what it says – nor is there any indication of how this would be judged or assessed.
The inescapable conclusion is that rather than these changes being in the interests of our members and the union, the whole process was a powerplay in the interests of TFRC. Few members of the factions supporting the “resolutions” even contributed to the debate, leaving me wondering if they fully appreciated the seriousness of toeing the party line and voting in favour of “resolutions” deemed unlawful by legal opinion.
On the insistence of the rest of us, and because of the potential legal consequences for us as individuals as well as the union as a whole, the voting on these “resolutions” was formally recorded through a roll-call.
With all the attacks on our members by this Tory government, the £20 a week cut to Universal Credit, the real terms cuts to wages, the rise in child poverty and reliance on foodbanks to make ends meet, the increase in energy cost and food and fuel shortages, it is shocking that almost the whole of the NEC meeting was taken up on debating resolutions that were legally incompetent and an obvious breach of rules. So much for member led.
Whatever wrongs the TFRC grouping think they are addressing, and there may have been some sympathy for that, they have seriously misjudged and lost all credibility by undermining the very lay democracy they claim they champion.
Kate Ramsden