11.03.2010

Witch-hunt cannot be stopped by judges

Carl Chater exposes Prentis's union bureaucrats' collusion with employers

The witch-hunt against four members of the Socialist Party in England and Wales, beginning with the 2007 Unison conference, has now led to an attack on thousands of members in four major branches. Subterfuge, collusion with employers, breach of union rules and rescinding branch elections have all been used by unelected London officials, presumably with the full knowledge and connivance of Dave Prentis. He seems determined to round on the left during his bid to get re-elected as Unison general secretary.

Readers may recall that four SPEW comrades - Onay Kasab, Glen Kelly, Brian Debus and Suzanne Muna - had issued a leaflet at the 2007 conference protesting against a large number of resolutions being ruled out of order by the standing orders committee. The leaflet used the famous image of the three wise monkeys and called for democratic debate. This was too much for the leadership and resulted in a despicable charge of racism against the four (see ‘Unison monkey trial’ Weekly Worker September 10 2009). Though the accusations of racism were dropped, bans from office of between three and five years followed. Meanwhile, the four resorted to an industrial tribunal on the grounds of discrimination against their philosophical beliefs - Marxism. This, as really ought to have been expected, had a disastrous outcome.

The tribunal judge ruled that the four’s beliefs did not fall within the protection of the Religion and Belief Regulations (2003), which outlaws discrimination on grounds of religious or philosophical beliefs. This was apparently on the basis that “philosophical beliefs do not include political beliefs”. Despite the fact that it did not fall within the tribunal’s remit, the judge went on to consider whether the four had been discriminated against because of their political beliefs. Apparently the (presumably political) views of the four “conflict with the fundamental rights of others and the dignity of the individual and are not worthy of respect … in a democratic society”. He found them “repugnant”.

This may be why documents revealed under legal discovery and witness testimony from a regional officer to the effect that Unison regional secretary Linda Perks was leading a campaign to deal with the ‘problem’ of Trotskyist activists and was seeking to remove elected branch officials from so-called hot-spot branches amounted to “no evidence”. In light of this non-evidence Unison was not required to explain why its actions were not discriminatory. Clearly the judge and indeed the other tribunal members were eager to give legal cover to the removal of “repugnant” Trotskyists - and thereby set a precedent to act against any other similar socialist or militant activists.

The ‘non-evidence’ revealed in the tribunal was sufficient for John McDonnell MP to back a call last December for an inquiry into the actions of certain full-time Unison officials. It goes without saying that this has fallen on deaf ears, as far as Prentis and co are concerned.

In internal union mitigation hearings the four were all banned from holding office, but on reduced terms. This, however, seems to have been a ploy - more extensive action against elected branch officers was being planned. For nearly three years it was all about four individual members of the Socialist Party, but now it was about to get really nasty.

With one eye on the snap election for general secretary and the other on the impending general election, the leadership planned to neuter the opposition as far as possible. No doubt emboldened by the tribunal ruling, the Prentis clique clearly had in mind a more permanent removal of the four, but needed new ‘evidence’. They also probably hoped to get some dirt on other ‘problem activists’ and so dramatically escalated the witch-hunt beyond the four.

In collusion with employers, on March 5 full-time London regional officials mounted synchronised dawn raids on three of the branches of those involved in the hearings. They seized records, locked down computers, denied any access to offices or information without their approval, cancelled the planned annual general meetings and branch elections - although some of those recently elected have not yet been removed. Normal executive meetings of branch officials and shop stewards were effectively cancelled. Without any prior reason these branches were put under “special measures” and are completely under the control of London regional officials.

If it were not so serious it would be laughable how some of these toe-rags behave. When London regional organiser Dan Pappiett, the imposed “pro-tem” branch secretary, raided the Greenwich branch with his back-up (five other officials) he told Onay Kasab, flying squad fashion, to “disappear sharpish”. Having previously misled Kas into thinking there would be a simple handover later in the week (Kas had complied with his suspension), Pappiett and co had secret meetings with the employer to cancel facility time for branch officers, gain entry into a secure council building, change locks on the union door and obtain support from security guards (not union members, of course). Council minutes of a trade union liaison meeting were doctored to make it appear that it had been reported the union branch would be taken into administration and that “significant” decisions would be taken by the regional office - in fact no such report was made. There are also rumours that a meeting took place between regional officials, the Labour leader of Greenwich council and the chief executive. All this when council workers are facing major reorganisation and potential redundancies.

A letter to all members in Greenwich branch (similar letters were sent to members of the other affected branches) states that Onay Kasab is barred from office for two years. It then goes on, without giving reasons, to state that the NEC has instructed the Greater London region to put in place measures “to ensure that the governance, democratic functioning and membership participation in the Greenwich branch is assured”. So Pappiett is appointed secretary, even though the branch had already elected a replacement for Onay. The letter goes on about improving communications, steward organisation and membership participation in the democratic functioning of the branch.

All disingenuous nonsense - the exact opposite of what is being done - or rather not being done. Up to the banning of Onay Kasab, none of this was an issue for the leadership. But it has already had its effects. A number of elected branch officers have resigned and there is a growing feeling among members that they now have no union representation. Some are thinking of switching to Unite.

John McDonnell MP has labelled the NEC’s actions “a disgraceful attack on Unison members and contrary to union democracy - members should choose their own representatives. It is also an appalling waste of time and energy of Unison staff and activists at a time when our members face unprecedented job cuts.”

NEC member and candidate for general secretary Paul Holmes has also come out against the “special measures”: “This is totally unacceptable. I have raised the issue, as an NEC member for local government … I can’t see how there can be any connection between suspensions relating to incidents over two years ago and any need to have raids and put functioning branches into special measures.”

Fellow NEC member Jon Rogers has also been asking questions. He points out that previously, in the exceptional circumstances where the union has needed to step in to run branches, NEC members have been given prior notice - it did not happen in this case and it was three days before regional secretary Linda Parks deigned to give a reason for the “special measures”. The pertinent part is rule G8.3.3, which authorises a visit to a branch by an officer where (in the opinion of the general or regional secretary) it appears that a branch is not functioning effectively. It is under this rule that “regional supervision” takes place.

Jon Rogers points out that “up until last week … neither the general nor regional secretary had formed the view that any of these branches were ‘not functioning effectively’ ... What can have changed? ... whilst these branches were the responsibility of elected officers facing disciplinary action there was no problem and no need for regional supervision, but - as soon as disciplinary action took effect and the officers who had been found to have breached our rules were out of the way - then, and only then, the branches were suddenly deemed not to be functioning effectively and to require regional supervision.” In fact, the measures taken by regional officials have ensured the branches cannot function.

The Defend the Four campaign is urging branches to pass resolutions against the witch-hunt and calling on members to send letters of protest to Dave Prentis, Unison HQ, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ; or d.Prentis@unison.co.uk

Send copies to Defend the Four campaign, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG or email to info@stopthewitchhunt.org.uk