Pogue
15th November 2009, 18:16
I don't know how aware comrades are of this but at the moment there is an ongoing crisis within Unison where certain sections of the membership are being targetted by both management and the union officials at the same time.
This persecution has been focused on shop stewards who are known to be more militant, i.e. they will defend in tribunals members who are somewhat controversial in the reasons for the disciplinary action, etc.
Unison is obviously an important union, being very active in the NHS, a huge job sector and the worlds biggest employer, but like most unions, well, all unions, the buecracy is failing the membership. Unison has a number of brilliant shop stewards and alot of power thats not being used by the beurecracy! Certain sections of the union just seem to be a disappointment essentially - for example the ambulance service, where some union officials are also part of management!
This is vital in the light of job cuts (part of wider public service cuts being experienced at the moment, and especially given the prospect of a Conservative government just as, if not more commited to cuts than Labour have been) in the NHS, because obviously with our best militants being persecuted, we're not going to be able to deal with this as best we could (and I mean we, as I'm going into a job in the NHS next year :bored:)
Caroline Bedale
Support Caroline Bedale
Meeting
Monday 23rd November 7.30pm
Friends Meeting House
6 Mount Street, Manchester
(opposite back of Central Library, near Albert Square / Manchester Town Hall)
CAROLINE BEDALE from Manchester has been banned from holding UNISON office for 8 years.
All charges relate to the campaign to reinstate Karen Reissmann – who had been sacked by her employer (Manchester Mental Health Trust and Social Care Trust) – and who was supported by UNISON in this campaign, not just for reinstatement to her job but for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
Caroline is said to have acted "in a manner prejudicial to the Union and/or her Branch". No members of her branch have complained about the way she conducts business in the branch, about her representation in individual cases, about her organising and support for groups of members, about her negotiating skills with the employer, about her tireless work for the branch, for the union and for public services.
Caroline does not deserve to have been found guilty of the charges. She has given almost the whole of her working life to the trade union, for the benefit of members and to support public services.
If you would like to show your support for Caroline and protest against the disciplinary action, come to the Meeting, or you could:
Send a letter to Dave Prentis, General Secretary, and to Gerry Gallagher, President of the NEC, at UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ.
Consider the model motion in your Branch.
Send copies to the Support Group for Caroline, [email protected]
The following is a model motion for anyone active in Unison:
Model Motion to Support Caroline Bedale
This branch notes that UNISON has imposed an eight year ban on holding office upon Caroline Bedale, Secretary of the Manchester Community and Mental Health Branch of UNISON. As she is 58yrs old, this will take Caroline beyond retirement age.
We further note that the penalty may be subject to appeal and we are aware that the charges are related to her support for sacked trade unionist Karen Reissmann.
This branch is concerned that UNISON with its proud tradition of fighting inequality and its inherent sense of fairness and justice should allow an NEC disciplinary panel to act in manner that could be described as perverse and vindictive. We believe such action to be of itself prejudicial to the good name of UNISON.
It is of concern that the current national disciplinary rules of UNISON are fundamentally flawed and do not even meet the standards of some of our own employers’ disciplinary procedures. Most employer policies provide for counselling, re-training and live warnings not exceeding 12 months. They also provide open and transparent guidance for disciplinary panels on an appropriate sanction for a given action. The make up of an employer disciplinary panel is also laid down to ensure fairness and a feeling of objectivity from the ’accused’.
This branch meeting agrees to:
Consider submitting or supporting a rule amendment to the next National Delegate Conference which addresses the flaws in the disciplinary procedure, for example by bringing it into line with best practice and ACAS guidelines.
Write a letter to the General Secretary and to President to express our concern at this perverse decision and to request them to exercise their powers in an attempt to restore confidence in the fair and unbiased application of the union’s disciplinary procedures.
SUPPORT CAROLINE BEDALE
CAROLINE BEDALE from Manchester has been banned from holding UNISON office for 8 years. All charges relate to the campaign to reinstate Karen Reissmann – who had been sacked by her employer (Manchester Mental Health Trust and Social Care Trust) – and who was supported by UNISON in this campaign, not just for reinstatement to her job but for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
Caroline Bedale has been found guilty by a UNISON Disciplinary Committee of charges relating to things she did after UNISON withdrew legal assistance from Karen Reissmann, just before Karen‟s case was due to be heard by an Employment Tribunal. The disciplinary penalty means she will be barred from holding union office for 8 years.
What Would You Have Done?
Legal assistance was withdrawn because Karen decided not to take some legal advice. Only the legal assistance was withdrawn – UNISON policy continued to support the campaign for Karen‟s reinstatement and for the right for trade union activists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
What would you have done if your branch was under attack from a vindictive employer who had sacked the Chairperson of your branch because of their trade union work and speaking out against cuts and privatisation? Wouldn‟t you have been dismayed if, after an unprecedented strike by health workers and a high profile union campaign for reinstatement, the union‟s legal assistance had been withdrawn? Given that the union policy of campaigning for Karen‟s reinstatement still continued wouldn‟t you have done what you could to defend and support her?
What Caroline is charged with
A: "Seeking to secure alternative legal advice and representation for Karen Reissmann, whose legal advice and representation had been terminated by the Union".
B: "campaigning against UNISON policy" – that policy is defined as "the decision of UNISON to withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann" – and that Caroline has acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing.
C: "using UNISON resources to campaign against UNISON policy" – Caroline is said to have campaigned against the Union‟s rules and policy, and acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing. It is not specified what rules she is meant to have campaigned against, and the „policy‟ is actually a „decision‟ not a policy.
What Caroline did – as Joint Branch Secretary
1. At Karen‟s request, Caroline sent a letter to Salford Unemployed and Community Resource Centre (SUCRC) asking if they would "look into taking on" Karen‟s case if UNISON did not agree to continue the legal assistance. No UNISON funds were used for Karen‟s new legal representation.
2. As agreed by the Branch Committee, Caroline sent a letter to all branches in September 2008 to update them on Karen‟s case, and to say that the campaign continued for her reinstatement and for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation. The letter asked branches to sign an open letter and petition to Ivan Lewis MP. A branch delegation together with the NW Regional Secretary, Frank Hont, was planning to meet him about Karen.
The letter mentioned that the Union had withdrawn legal assistance, and said that the Branch Committee "think this is a shame". That was the only comment on the withdrawal of legal assistance – but this is said to be „campaigning against UNISON policy‟ and prejudicial to the union. There was NO campaign to get the union to reinstate legal assistance. There WAS a continuing campaign in support of Karen, supported at national, regional and branch levels. Caroline was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this letter, but was found to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the union.
What Caroline did – in a PRIVATE capacity, but which she is accused of having done "whilst Joint Branch Secretary". This is a crucial issue for all union activists – we must be allowed to do things in our private life which are not under the control and scrutiny of the union.
3. She allowed her private telephone numbers to be used as the contact point on a press release from the independent „Reinstate Karen Reissmann Campaign‟. 4. Caroline sent an email from her own computer using her email to a closed discussion email group for members of the United Left in UNISON, to let them know what was happening in Karen‟s case. She said that legal assistance had been withdrawn and that there were attempts to persuade the union to reinstate legal
support. This email is said to have been "in furtherance of a campaign against a decision of UNISON to withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann". There was NO such campaign to try to get the legal representation reinstated. A comment in an email does not constitute a campaign. Furthermore, it was from her private email. Caroline allows the branch to use that email address for convenience. It is not a UNISON resource, it is hers.
Again, she was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this email, but was found guilty of acting in a manner prejudicial to the union.
Comments
By these four pieces of evidence Caroline is said to have broken various rules, and to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the union. It is not clear how Caroline has broken all these rules, nor how her actions are "prejudicial to the union‟.
UNISON Rules which Caroline is said to have broken
B 2.1: To promote, safeguard and improve the interests and status of members and the Union as a whole.
B 2.2: To promote and establish a member-led union and to carry out and fulfil decisions made by members in a spirit of unity and accountability.
B2.4: To encourage solidarity and an effective working partnership between members, activists, representatives, officers and all staff in the service of the Union and its agreed policies.
B2.5: To promote and safeguard the rights of members to have an adequate opportunity to participate in the initiation and development of policy making … together with the right to campaign to change policy, while at all times acting within the rules and agreed policy.
B 3.1: To provide minimum guaranteed standards of advice, representation and service.
B 4.6: To seek to ensure that members, activists, representatives and staff are treated with dignity and respect at all times when participating in the Union‟s democratic structures. …
Rules to do with the role of Branch Secretary in overseeing the functions of the Branch Committee and Stewards (G2.2.7, G4.2.4, G5.3.5).
Rule K, to do with legal assistance, that the NEC has the power to decide whether someone should have legal assistance or not (K 1.1), whether to continue or withdraw legal assistance and they can delegate this power to a lay or full time officer of the Union (K 1.6), and that they may withdraw legal assistance if the member does not follow advice of the Union or its appointed solicitors (K 6).
Caroline did not seek to "secure alternative legal advice and representation" for Karen. Legal advice she has taken confirms that the letter to SUCRC did not instruct, commission or organise legal assistance or representation – and would not have been accepted as such by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It was not a referral from the branch – it was Karen herself who sorted out and was billed for the legal representation from SUCRC.
There was no campaign to try to reinstate legal representation from UNISON for Karen. The mention of the withdrawal of legal representation in a letter and an email was not part of a campaign against that decision. Furthermore, a decision about the implementation of policy is not in itself a new „policy‟, and yet Caroline was charged with campaigning "against UNISON policy". This was a decision taken by a full-time officer, which has not been discussed or ratified by the full NEC. Full-time officers can make decisions; they cannot make UNISON policy.
Is This Disciplinary Action Fair?
Caroline does not deserve to have been found guilty of the charges. She has given almost the whole of her working life to the trade union, for the benefit of members and to support public services. She does not deserve the penalty of being barred from holding any union office for 8 years – as she is 58, that will take her well beyond retirement.
Caroline is said to have acted "in a manner prejudicial to the Union and/or her Branch". No members of her branch have complained about the way she conducts business in the branch, about her representation in individual cases, about her organising and support for groups of members, about her negotiating skills with the employer, about her tireless work for the branch, for the union and for public services.
Caroline is respected by UNISON members and by other trade unionists for her honesty and integrity and total commitment to trade union principles and to members.
Support Caroline Bedale
If you would like to show your support for Caroline and protest against the disciplinary action, you could:
Send a letter to Dave Prentis, General Secretary, and to Gerry Gallagher, President of the NEC, at UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ.
Consider the model motion in your Branch.
Send copies to the Support Group for Caroline, [email protected]
Attend meetings called by the Support Group. Monday 23rd November, 7.30pm, Friends Meeting House, Mount Street (near Manchester Town Hall).
A website is being set up - check it for information.
www.supportcarolinebedale.co.uk
Caroline has been a loyal UNISON activist for years. But she does not always agree with the leadership of UNISON and the direction it is taking. Some think this is the real reason she has been banned from office for 8 years.
We have to stand up for free speech.
We have to stand up for democracy.
We have to stand up for a union that puts its members’ interests first.
Caroline has devoted much of her life to this. She is one of the most honest and committed activists any union could ever want.
We need more Carolines, not less.
Many activists will be very concerned about this decision. If you are – Do something. Raise your concerns about such disciplinary action. It will not stop unless people make it stop.
Sorry for a long post, the bit at the top summarises it.
The important thing is that if you a member of Unison or look like becoming one, especially if your a steward, be careful!
This persecution has been focused on shop stewards who are known to be more militant, i.e. they will defend in tribunals members who are somewhat controversial in the reasons for the disciplinary action, etc.
Unison is obviously an important union, being very active in the NHS, a huge job sector and the worlds biggest employer, but like most unions, well, all unions, the buecracy is failing the membership. Unison has a number of brilliant shop stewards and alot of power thats not being used by the beurecracy! Certain sections of the union just seem to be a disappointment essentially - for example the ambulance service, where some union officials are also part of management!
This is vital in the light of job cuts (part of wider public service cuts being experienced at the moment, and especially given the prospect of a Conservative government just as, if not more commited to cuts than Labour have been) in the NHS, because obviously with our best militants being persecuted, we're not going to be able to deal with this as best we could (and I mean we, as I'm going into a job in the NHS next year :bored:)
Caroline Bedale
Support Caroline Bedale
Meeting
Monday 23rd November 7.30pm
Friends Meeting House
6 Mount Street, Manchester
(opposite back of Central Library, near Albert Square / Manchester Town Hall)
CAROLINE BEDALE from Manchester has been banned from holding UNISON office for 8 years.
All charges relate to the campaign to reinstate Karen Reissmann – who had been sacked by her employer (Manchester Mental Health Trust and Social Care Trust) – and who was supported by UNISON in this campaign, not just for reinstatement to her job but for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
Caroline is said to have acted "in a manner prejudicial to the Union and/or her Branch". No members of her branch have complained about the way she conducts business in the branch, about her representation in individual cases, about her organising and support for groups of members, about her negotiating skills with the employer, about her tireless work for the branch, for the union and for public services.
Caroline does not deserve to have been found guilty of the charges. She has given almost the whole of her working life to the trade union, for the benefit of members and to support public services.
If you would like to show your support for Caroline and protest against the disciplinary action, come to the Meeting, or you could:
Send a letter to Dave Prentis, General Secretary, and to Gerry Gallagher, President of the NEC, at UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ.
Consider the model motion in your Branch.
Send copies to the Support Group for Caroline, [email protected]
The following is a model motion for anyone active in Unison:
Model Motion to Support Caroline Bedale
This branch notes that UNISON has imposed an eight year ban on holding office upon Caroline Bedale, Secretary of the Manchester Community and Mental Health Branch of UNISON. As she is 58yrs old, this will take Caroline beyond retirement age.
We further note that the penalty may be subject to appeal and we are aware that the charges are related to her support for sacked trade unionist Karen Reissmann.
This branch is concerned that UNISON with its proud tradition of fighting inequality and its inherent sense of fairness and justice should allow an NEC disciplinary panel to act in manner that could be described as perverse and vindictive. We believe such action to be of itself prejudicial to the good name of UNISON.
It is of concern that the current national disciplinary rules of UNISON are fundamentally flawed and do not even meet the standards of some of our own employers’ disciplinary procedures. Most employer policies provide for counselling, re-training and live warnings not exceeding 12 months. They also provide open and transparent guidance for disciplinary panels on an appropriate sanction for a given action. The make up of an employer disciplinary panel is also laid down to ensure fairness and a feeling of objectivity from the ’accused’.
This branch meeting agrees to:
Consider submitting or supporting a rule amendment to the next National Delegate Conference which addresses the flaws in the disciplinary procedure, for example by bringing it into line with best practice and ACAS guidelines.
Write a letter to the General Secretary and to President to express our concern at this perverse decision and to request them to exercise their powers in an attempt to restore confidence in the fair and unbiased application of the union’s disciplinary procedures.
SUPPORT CAROLINE BEDALE
CAROLINE BEDALE from Manchester has been banned from holding UNISON office for 8 years. All charges relate to the campaign to reinstate Karen Reissmann – who had been sacked by her employer (Manchester Mental Health Trust and Social Care Trust) – and who was supported by UNISON in this campaign, not just for reinstatement to her job but for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
Caroline Bedale has been found guilty by a UNISON Disciplinary Committee of charges relating to things she did after UNISON withdrew legal assistance from Karen Reissmann, just before Karen‟s case was due to be heard by an Employment Tribunal. The disciplinary penalty means she will be barred from holding union office for 8 years.
What Would You Have Done?
Legal assistance was withdrawn because Karen decided not to take some legal advice. Only the legal assistance was withdrawn – UNISON policy continued to support the campaign for Karen‟s reinstatement and for the right for trade union activists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
What would you have done if your branch was under attack from a vindictive employer who had sacked the Chairperson of your branch because of their trade union work and speaking out against cuts and privatisation? Wouldn‟t you have been dismayed if, after an unprecedented strike by health workers and a high profile union campaign for reinstatement, the union‟s legal assistance had been withdrawn? Given that the union policy of campaigning for Karen‟s reinstatement still continued wouldn‟t you have done what you could to defend and support her?
What Caroline is charged with
A: "Seeking to secure alternative legal advice and representation for Karen Reissmann, whose legal advice and representation had been terminated by the Union".
B: "campaigning against UNISON policy" – that policy is defined as "the decision of UNISON to withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann" – and that Caroline has acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing.
C: "using UNISON resources to campaign against UNISON policy" – Caroline is said to have campaigned against the Union‟s rules and policy, and acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing. It is not specified what rules she is meant to have campaigned against, and the „policy‟ is actually a „decision‟ not a policy.
What Caroline did – as Joint Branch Secretary
1. At Karen‟s request, Caroline sent a letter to Salford Unemployed and Community Resource Centre (SUCRC) asking if they would "look into taking on" Karen‟s case if UNISON did not agree to continue the legal assistance. No UNISON funds were used for Karen‟s new legal representation.
2. As agreed by the Branch Committee, Caroline sent a letter to all branches in September 2008 to update them on Karen‟s case, and to say that the campaign continued for her reinstatement and for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation. The letter asked branches to sign an open letter and petition to Ivan Lewis MP. A branch delegation together with the NW Regional Secretary, Frank Hont, was planning to meet him about Karen.
The letter mentioned that the Union had withdrawn legal assistance, and said that the Branch Committee "think this is a shame". That was the only comment on the withdrawal of legal assistance – but this is said to be „campaigning against UNISON policy‟ and prejudicial to the union. There was NO campaign to get the union to reinstate legal assistance. There WAS a continuing campaign in support of Karen, supported at national, regional and branch levels. Caroline was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this letter, but was found to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the union.
What Caroline did – in a PRIVATE capacity, but which she is accused of having done "whilst Joint Branch Secretary". This is a crucial issue for all union activists – we must be allowed to do things in our private life which are not under the control and scrutiny of the union.
3. She allowed her private telephone numbers to be used as the contact point on a press release from the independent „Reinstate Karen Reissmann Campaign‟. 4. Caroline sent an email from her own computer using her email to a closed discussion email group for members of the United Left in UNISON, to let them know what was happening in Karen‟s case. She said that legal assistance had been withdrawn and that there were attempts to persuade the union to reinstate legal
support. This email is said to have been "in furtherance of a campaign against a decision of UNISON to withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann". There was NO such campaign to try to get the legal representation reinstated. A comment in an email does not constitute a campaign. Furthermore, it was from her private email. Caroline allows the branch to use that email address for convenience. It is not a UNISON resource, it is hers.
Again, she was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this email, but was found guilty of acting in a manner prejudicial to the union.
Comments
By these four pieces of evidence Caroline is said to have broken various rules, and to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the union. It is not clear how Caroline has broken all these rules, nor how her actions are "prejudicial to the union‟.
UNISON Rules which Caroline is said to have broken
B 2.1: To promote, safeguard and improve the interests and status of members and the Union as a whole.
B 2.2: To promote and establish a member-led union and to carry out and fulfil decisions made by members in a spirit of unity and accountability.
B2.4: To encourage solidarity and an effective working partnership between members, activists, representatives, officers and all staff in the service of the Union and its agreed policies.
B2.5: To promote and safeguard the rights of members to have an adequate opportunity to participate in the initiation and development of policy making … together with the right to campaign to change policy, while at all times acting within the rules and agreed policy.
B 3.1: To provide minimum guaranteed standards of advice, representation and service.
B 4.6: To seek to ensure that members, activists, representatives and staff are treated with dignity and respect at all times when participating in the Union‟s democratic structures. …
Rules to do with the role of Branch Secretary in overseeing the functions of the Branch Committee and Stewards (G2.2.7, G4.2.4, G5.3.5).
Rule K, to do with legal assistance, that the NEC has the power to decide whether someone should have legal assistance or not (K 1.1), whether to continue or withdraw legal assistance and they can delegate this power to a lay or full time officer of the Union (K 1.6), and that they may withdraw legal assistance if the member does not follow advice of the Union or its appointed solicitors (K 6).
Caroline did not seek to "secure alternative legal advice and representation" for Karen. Legal advice she has taken confirms that the letter to SUCRC did not instruct, commission or organise legal assistance or representation – and would not have been accepted as such by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It was not a referral from the branch – it was Karen herself who sorted out and was billed for the legal representation from SUCRC.
There was no campaign to try to reinstate legal representation from UNISON for Karen. The mention of the withdrawal of legal representation in a letter and an email was not part of a campaign against that decision. Furthermore, a decision about the implementation of policy is not in itself a new „policy‟, and yet Caroline was charged with campaigning "against UNISON policy". This was a decision taken by a full-time officer, which has not been discussed or ratified by the full NEC. Full-time officers can make decisions; they cannot make UNISON policy.
Is This Disciplinary Action Fair?
Caroline does not deserve to have been found guilty of the charges. She has given almost the whole of her working life to the trade union, for the benefit of members and to support public services. She does not deserve the penalty of being barred from holding any union office for 8 years – as she is 58, that will take her well beyond retirement.
Caroline is said to have acted "in a manner prejudicial to the Union and/or her Branch". No members of her branch have complained about the way she conducts business in the branch, about her representation in individual cases, about her organising and support for groups of members, about her negotiating skills with the employer, about her tireless work for the branch, for the union and for public services.
Caroline is respected by UNISON members and by other trade unionists for her honesty and integrity and total commitment to trade union principles and to members.
Support Caroline Bedale
If you would like to show your support for Caroline and protest against the disciplinary action, you could:
Send a letter to Dave Prentis, General Secretary, and to Gerry Gallagher, President of the NEC, at UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ.
Consider the model motion in your Branch.
Send copies to the Support Group for Caroline, [email protected]
Attend meetings called by the Support Group. Monday 23rd November, 7.30pm, Friends Meeting House, Mount Street (near Manchester Town Hall).
A website is being set up - check it for information.
www.supportcarolinebedale.co.uk
Caroline has been a loyal UNISON activist for years. But she does not always agree with the leadership of UNISON and the direction it is taking. Some think this is the real reason she has been banned from office for 8 years.
We have to stand up for free speech.
We have to stand up for democracy.
We have to stand up for a union that puts its members’ interests first.
Caroline has devoted much of her life to this. She is one of the most honest and committed activists any union could ever want.
We need more Carolines, not less.
Many activists will be very concerned about this decision. If you are – Do something. Raise your concerns about such disciplinary action. It will not stop unless people make it stop.
Sorry for a long post, the bit at the top summarises it.
The important thing is that if you a member of Unison or look like becoming one, especially if your a steward, be careful!