Why we walked out of UNISON Community Conference? because a man dismissed for bullying & harassing 14 women was chairing it

 

A week ago there was a walkout of UNISON delegates and Service Group Executive members from our annual Community conference, which was being held in Glasgow. This has never happened before in Community.

This was an unplanned and spontaneous walk out since we had no idea until the last minute, that an imposter, pretending to be the lay President of UNISON, Paul Holmes, was going to chair our conference. Despite the fact he has recently been dismissed by his employer, following bullying and harassment allegations by 14 (yes 14) female UNISON members (and also by at least one male who was threatened with violence).

Not only has Paul Holmes been dismissed by his employer for bullying and harassing women but the current majority Group on the UNISON NEC have decided that they will "change" long established union rules to allow him to be our lay President, despite being unemployed, and therefore not eligible under rule to hold office.

The NEC has no right to change our rules to support men accused of such bullying and harassment. Only our annual National Delegate Conference can change such rules.

Paul Holmes has also recently lost an employment tribunal case for what is called "interim relief", which means the courts think it is likely he was fairly dismissed for abusing all these women.

We are a relatively small UNISON Service Group with only 60 delegates representing some 60,000 members. We also had visitors and members of the Service Group Executive.

I think around 25 members walked out including a former Female UNISON President, members of the Service Group Executive, delegates and visitors. Far more would have walked out if we had known in advance about this outrage.

Since then I have been contacted by UNISON members from all over the UK horrified that a man dismissed for abusing so many women can be allowed to hold office. They want him to be at least suspended until there is a proper investigation and process by UNISON into the allegations.

Otherwise it seems UNISON is saying to our 1 million plus female members, that no matter what you say, or how many say it, we won't believe you if you say it about one of our male NEC favourites.

In-UNISON: On International Women's Day - a former UNISON President gives her view on the current "President"

Hat tip in-UNISON blog yesterday by former President and current minority group NEC member, Maureen Le Marinel.

"On such a special day, it is always great to hear news that will make a difference to women in our union both members and staff. Many of you are following the events around the UNISON President and the faction Time for Real Change (TFRC) who are quick to put out news when it is in their or the Presidents favour.

Recently they made noise that UNISON was backing an application for ‘Interim Relief’ following the dismissal of the President by his employer for what we now know from those women and men involved was bullying and victimisation. The ‘Interim Relief’ application was on the grounds of Trade Union Victimisation because that's what the President and TFRC say is the reason for the dismissal!

Don't get me wrong if anyone is dismissed or being treated differently for performing their legitimate Trade Union duties then I would be there standing with them, but it is clear to me and many others that there is more going on in this case and ‘hiding’ behind an allegation of Trade Union Victimisation undervalues and demeans real cases and makes it harder for those who do face this treatment harder to take and be believed.

So yesterday at an online open to the public (if you had registered) Interim Relief Order Hearing, Solicitors acting on behalf of UNISON and representing the President and Solicitors acting on behalf of Kirklees Council put their cases to a Judge. The Judge would determine if when the case went to a full tribunal hearing there would be a significant possibility that the President and his solicitors could win a case for Trade Union Victimisation and if so one of the outcomes from yesterday would have been that Kirklees Council would have had to reinstate the President and his salary from the date of his dismissal in early February 2022.

Following both sides putting their case, the Judge REJECTED the claim for ‘Interim Relief’. Whilst this Judge did not give the Interim Relief Order, and many could see that as a clear indication that a case for Trade Union Victimisation could not be taken or won, the President still has the right to take a case to a full Employment Tribunal based on Unfair Dismissal (which has been widely reported in the media that it is what the next step will be) for Trade Union Victimisation.

The result yesterday must give those women and activists involved in this awful case within our union some strength that they did the right thing in taking their cases up with the employer and their union. That there are 1000’s in our union who believe them, stand with them and support them.

I love my union and the work that it does for women, but we need to be clear that sometimes we get it wrong for all the right reasons. Our union now needs to put an end to its internal process and follow the rule book in respect of a Rule I process, I can see no reason to delay now that the employers process is complete, they are and always have been separate processes.

I call on the UNISON NEC, of which I am a member, on this International Women's Day to act immediately and address these allegations by a Senior Lay activist in our union against the women of our union.

#BreakTheBias #IWD2022

UNISON NEC: Damaging action behind TFRC rhetoric

 

Kate Ramsden is a respected member of the UNISON NEC and is known for being fair and independent minded.  This is what she thinks about the present NEC "leadership" who call themselves the "TFRC". 

"This is my piece on the UNISON Active blog about the current leadership of the NEC. Sometimes it’s just important to nail your colours to the mast and I am dismayed, angry and yes, really disappointed at what is going on and also at the disingenuous way it is being portrayed by TFRC.

I won’t lie - it has been a profoundly depressing experience attending meetings of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) this year.

Just when the pay, conditions and safety of women, many of them low paid, who make up almost 80% of our members, and who have been the heroes of Covid, should have been centre stage at NEC meetings, we have seen the unedifying spectacle of our Time for Real Change (TFRC) leadership instead spending hours debating internal wrangling.

Instead of promoting equality and diversity, TFRC has replaced most committee chairs with white men. Instead of debating and confronting the challenges of building confidence in the Local Government pay ballot, we have had to sit through engineered attacks on staff and the undermining of our own democratic processes for changing rules.

Despite TFRC’s fine words like “member led” and “union democracy”, I cannot for the life of me see where the interests of our members are being served. Their stated aims may seem to be something we can all sign up to, but what I am witnessing is the self-serving and damaging action behind that rhetoric. 

We all want better pay for our public service workers; and better funding for the NHS, local government and other public services. We all want a member led union, with greater lay democracy, an end to discrimination towards all equalities groups and to challenge the hostile environment for our migrant workers and refugees. We all want a more equal, socially just society. I and most of the activists I know have been working for that for most of our adult lives through our union and political activism.

However, look beyond the snappy catch phrases, and you realise that you don’t actually know what it is TFRC want to do in our union to achieve these ends for our members. That, to them, a “lay led” union doesn’t mean respecting the rules and policies that come from the National Delegate Conference, voted on by our lay membership. That it doesn’t mean finding out what our members want and finding ways to organise and engage with them in partnership with the elected General Secretary and the staff.

I have been an NEC member for almost five years. Like others of my Scotland NEC colleagues, I am unaligned with any faction. We have challenged the previous NEC leadership, and we have won, through argument, NEC agreement to look at some of the processes to make them more transparent. All the while I have had the interests of the members in Scotland at the forefront of my mind, especially women members and especially the low paid women who have been on the frontline of dealing with COVID.

When the leadership of the NEC changed, I hoped that we would see some changes for the better; that it might allow for a more open, transparent and inclusive leadership, where everyone’s contribution was valued and where we could all work together for the benefit of our members, finding ways to genuinely engage all our members with their union.

We had our new General Secretary, Christina McAnea, and despite the hype from some, I am clear that she is not a “continuity” leader. I had hoped that the NEC could work in genuine partnership with Christina and the staff, to address the criticisms of the past, a process which, in my view had already begun.

I was doomed to bitter disappointment. Things are going from bad to worse, with most of the same tactics so vehemently criticised by the TFRC in the past, now embraced by the new faction. We see the same building of power bases and cliques, excluding those with expertise who don’t align themselves with the TFRC faction.

We see attempts to undermine the very lay democracy that TFRC purports to espouse, with the passing of motions which two out of three legal opinions advise are in breach of UNISON rules; and worst of all, we see the bullying and harassment of staff. We have become like the very employers we most criticise, with constant threats to staff of being sued for non-compliance.

So although the rhetoric has been all about getting back to being a member led union, there is precious little evidence that the “members” referred to are more than the TFRC members on the NEC. There is precious little evidence that the TFRC faction is making any attempt to start where our members are and build from there. Our very poor turnout in the Local Government pay ballot would surely tell us that.

Those of us who have followed the outcome of ballots in the years since the latest (anti-) Trade Union Act know that smaller, targeted ballots have a much higher chance of meeting the 50% threshold for strike action. We know that we are still a long way from building members’ confidence for wide-scale action, particularly after two years of COVID. We know that members care about pay, that they are angry, but also that many are not in a place to vote for strikes or to trust in collective action. These are arguments still to be won by patient organising and engagement.

What we need is an organising agenda that is inclusive of the whole of the leadership including those with different affiliations or none and in partnership with the General Secretary and staff. There is such excellent work done by staff to further UNISON’s policies agreed at NDC and huge amounts of knowledge and expertise amongst both staff and lay members.

But that is not what is happening and it is a massive opportunity missed. What I see is the NEC lay leadership pushing its own agenda because it can. What I am witnessing is much worse than what went before, especially when you look at its treatment of the staff and its cavalier attitude to our union’s rule book.

I don’t know who said “Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Was it one of George Orwell’s pigs? Anyway it feels to me that this is what we are seeing here.

Instead of taking the opportunity to engage with the whole of the NEC to make the arguments for what they are trying to achieve and how it will benefit our members; instead of listening to dissenting voices and countering them with coherent arguments and genuine debate, TFRC has chosen to railroad through decisions by strength of numbers.

It’s both arrogant and divisive. It makes no effort to take the rest of us with them and it leaves us feeling powerless to represent our members’ interests. That has never happened before, and when it is the self-described “left” faction that is taking this approach, you have to ask whose interests they are serving.

Kate Ramsden

"Council's bullying and sexist culture contributed to Rotherham scandal"

This is I think the most important finding from the enquiry by Professor Jay into the disgusting and shameful issues her report uncovered.

"A bullying and sexist culture promoted by the former leader of Rotherham council made it difficult for staff to raise concerns about child sexual exploitation, MPs have been told.

Roger Stone resigned as Rotherham’s Labour council leader in the wake of the Jay Report, which brought to light that 1,400 children in Rotherham had been sexually exploited over a 16-year period.
Stone said when he stepped down: “I believe it is only right that I, as leader, take responsibility on behalf of the council for the historic failings that are described so clearly in the report and it is my intention to do so.”

Professor Alexis Jay, the author of the report and former chief inspector of social work in Scotland, has now singled him out for criticism during her evidence to the House of Commons communities and local government committee inquiry yesterday.

She said that “sexist bullying” designed to put down and undermine women was a feature of the council’s “extremely traditional, male-dominated administration” during a number of years.

“The behaviour of senior people is absolutely critical in determining the ethos and the culture of an organisation. Staff will take their cue from that,” she said. “I don’t think this was an appropriate climate in which to be discussing an issue of such social sensitivity as child sexual exploitation.”

Labour MP Simon Danczuk asked Prof Jay about a letter sent to the committee by Martin Kimber, the authority’s chief executive, in which he is said to have written: “There have been challenges largely associated with the dominance of a particular personality within the council, who at times could be very direct.”

Professor Jay said she assumed that Mr Kimber “was referring to the then leader of the council”. Stone led the authority for 11 years until his resignation when Prof Jay released her report in August.
Rotherham’s new council leader, Paul Lakin, told MPs that he agreed with Professor Jay’s comments, acknowledging that a “bullying culture did exist” at a senior level. He referred to his predecessor as “remote”, and said that Labour councillors had no access to the leader’s office because “you couldn’t even get through the door to see his secretary”.

Lakin said Stone initially resisted his request to commission an independent inquiry after reports in The Times revealed the widespread grooming of girls in the town".

UNISON NDC 2010: “Bullied at work?” fringe

This packed standing room only official UNISON Health & safety fringe was held on Tuesday lunchtime. The fringe was used to launch a new UNISON document on “bullying at work” which is based on recent UNISON surveys and research on bullying. Portsmouth University business school lecturer, Charlotte Raynar was the main guest speaker (left). Nick Green of National Health & Safety Committee was Chair and Hope Daley (National Health & Safety officer) the second speaker. There was also a very personal contribution from a UNISON member who had been badly bullied at work.

There had been a survey on bullying in 1997 and a new one undertaken last year. A definition of bullying (it’s not the only one) used was having “weekly negative experiences” at work. Before only 50% of workers who reported such weekly negative experiences were willing to call this behaviour “bullying”. However in 2009 80% reported it as “bullying”. So the percentage of workers who now recognise they are being bullying had almost doubled. Which I suppose in a strange way is "positive" since it means that the message about what is bullying and that bullying is unacceptable - has got out.

Some interesting analysis about bullying and what to do about it.

When not being bullied 71% said that they would make formal complaint if they were to be bullied in the future. However only 17% of workers who reported being bullied had done so. 82% said if they were bullied they would see a UNISON rep but actually only 37% did in practice.

Only 20% of those who chose to confront a “bully” thought it had resolved the situation. Which is very low but only 5.9% of those who went to HR thought it resolved anything. Charlotte thought that in some cases when workers reported bullies to HR it ended up being treated as a performance management matter about the worker who complained! Those who made formal complaint thought it was resolved in only 15%. Surprising only 17% of those who had taking out collective grievances thought that it had worked but in this case Charlotte reported that in 1997 such grievances were very rare.

The price of bullying is clear. Workers being bullied suffer depression, stress, suffer lack of confidence and 28% of people leave work directly due to bullying.

Recession and the possible (probable) £34 billion in cuts will result in “negative behaviours” going up? Yes! Bullying is inefficient means of management. Doesn’t make them work harder. This is not just a HR issue this is a "people issue".

Next was Suzanne who was a UNISON member who had been bullied at work by a group of workers who made her life a misery. They made her life seem like “torture”. She put up with it for 2 years. She then reported it to her line manager who agreed that she was being bullied but did nothing. She went to UNISON. Who eventually got Thompsons solicitors involved. Lack of training and understanding by managers is the reason why bullying is “allowed” to carry on. Her managers were redeployed and don’t manage people anymore. She spoke movingly about how she used to be a very confident person but the bullying at the time made her cry all the time.

Hope Daley also spoke about the survey results and UNISON response. Apart from the research and the new policy document UNISON have introduced a specially designed one day course for activists on bullying. There is also new literature and campaign materials. Anti-bullying action should also be used to recruit new members and reps. 80% of members want specific legislation on tackling bullying. UNISON will press for this. Many employer policies on bullying are over 10 years old and not effective. UNISON will be pressing the HSE and the Council enforcement bodies to serve improvement notices about inadequate policies and risk assessments.

In the Q&A I asked whether or not the survey could identify if there was more bullying amongst UNISON members in the private sector (or who work with private contractors) since our branch often comes across “life on Mars” attitudes towards bullying by some private sector managers (it didn’t identify where members worked).

One delegate present told us that she was a former HR officer who was now a union rep. She was very critical of some of her former colleagues. She said she had joined HR because she thought it was a “caring profession”. She said that to be a good HR officer you need tremendous character and need to draw a line and stand up and say “no” to managers.

Finally, Charlotte reminded everyone one of the more positive outcomes of the research was that you are more likely to deal successfully with the abuse if you deal firmly with it on the first or second occasion. If you let the bullying go on for more times without doing anything then it is far more difficult to deal with it. So UNISON must encourage members to go to their reps as soon as there is a problem and the rep must deal with it quickly and firmly. Food for thought.

Anti-Bullying Week

This is a little late but just to point out that this week (16th to 20th November) is the UK Anti-Bullying Week. It’s not just about kids at school but bullying at work is a huge problem and unchecked can destroy peoples lives. IMO effective trade union representation is the best way to deal with bullying at work but far, far too many workers think they can rely upon employment law to protect them. People sometimes get the impression from reading the tabloid trash that you gets loads of money if your manager forgets to say hello to you in the morning! In practice this is simply not true and the overwhelming majority of serious bullying and harassment tribunal cases fail. Even if you win - often the awards are incredibly low.

Check out the ACAS site here and worksmart website to find out which union you should join (obviously it goes without saying that you should choose UNISON if you work in public services).

Bullying in the Workplace Petition and Workers Memorial Day tomorrow.

I’ve received this email from anti-bullying campaigner Vicky Gray (no known relation!). Bearing in mind that it is Workers Memorial Day tomorrow I thought I would post a link to her petition.

By co-incidence yesterday I was watching the London marathon from next to the Statute of the Building Worker opposite the Tower of London. Where people will be gathering tomorrow morning at 10.15am.

With the current recession employees need more protection in the workplace. I have started a new petition to Stop Bullying in The Workplace. It's called 09Bullying could you please sign it and pass it on to all members? http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/09Bullying/ When you complete the petition - it will email you a link which you have to click to actually have your name added to the list. Please do remember to check your spam folder if your email doesn't appear and make sure your name is on the list!

Stop Bullying in the workplace

40% of UK organisations still do not have an effective policy bullying. Introduce legislation that makes it compulsory that all workplaces have an effective policy on bullying. All organisations will submit a report on how many staff have submitted grievances or complained of bullying to the local newspapers who will report the bullying figures. Reports repeatedly reveal that between 10-50% of employees experience bullying which prevents them from fulfilling their duties the absence of legislation on bullying at work leaves both employees and employers unprotected.

Bullying is the cause of under performance, not the solution. Stress is now the number one cause of sickness absence; bullying is a major cause of stress. The cost of bullying to industry and taxpayers is estimated to at least £12 billion annually. The cost of conflict in the workplace could be in excess of £20-30 billion annually. This is equivalent to a hidden tax burden of over £1000 per working adult per year. Protect the worker change the law.
Vicky Gray

Why We All Hate Galloway

A good comrade sent me a copy of a promo for a new music video that is due to be released soon. I reckon that the SWP will probably want this to play as an intro" to the Respect National Conference later this month.

We did tell them about George but they wouldn't listen. In their arrogance and naivety they thought that anyone exposed to their presence would automatically "see the light" and be converted. This is quite sweet in one way. The similarity between the modern day Leninist bishops and religious fundamentalism of all types is quite delicious. Almost a pity that Galloway had to destroy all their dreams.

Remember that it wasn’t even the dressing up in pink tights that really damaged Galloway during the “Big Brother” show. Rather is was his cruel bullying, deliberate mockery and manipulation of the inadequate younger contestants, that exposed him as a nasty, vain and pompous bully. This was the real McGalloway.

This upset and disillusioned many of his core East End working class supporters, who will put up with a lot of things, but they cannot abide a bully.

Put Speakers on and enjoy!

Bullying the sick and vulnerable?

Wikipedia defines bullying “In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser who possesses more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim”

I’m just going to let off steam and have a rant (I can’t go into specifics) at the trend by many so-called “caring, responsible employers” to use discipline procedures and terminology to deal with very sick and vulnerable staff.

To make things clear I will only refer to what happens to staff who it is fully accepted by all sides, are genuinely chronically sick or have a very serious underlying medical condition. For example staff, who have recognised chronic mental health problems such as severe clinical depression, Bipolar disorder or Schizophrenia. Who are also doing all they can to manage or overcome their conditions.

However, some employers treat sick employees as “criminals” and have adopted sickness policies that send out extremely threatening “standard” letters and arrange “frightening” management meetings (“at which you could be dismissed”) for such employees. These letters are utterly unsympathetic, instructing employees to intend “Final Absence meetings” where they could receive written “Final Written warnings” for extensive periods during which they could be dismissed if there is any further sickness regardless of their disability.

Look, I’m not talking about someone where it is even suspected that they are “playing the system” (extremely rare) but people who it is recognised are chronically ill, even suicidal but employers still insist on sending out such letters. I had a case a few years ago when there was an employee off sick with a chronic mental health illness who was instructed to intend a “Final Absence Meeting” and given a written final written warning for 18 months over his sickness, even though he was hospitalised for his illness and confessed that he felt suicidal over the “written warnings”. The member felt that being “disciplined” in such a way for being ill meant it was their fault that they were ill. This just added to the illness.

If someone is very ill and there is no reasonable chance of recovery and all possible treatment, redeployment and adaptations seriously considered then there will have to be a process to end their employment. But that doesn’t mean employers should be allowed to bully vulnerable people out of a job.

I have no doubt that in the future (if it has not already happened) someone will kill themselves over such letters and warnings. What’s the best way to deal with these “rogue” employers? Will the New Commission for Equalities and Human rights do anything? Check out ban bullying at work day 7 November 2007