Suspended from UNISON for Defending Freedom of Speech and the Right of Free Assembly
Suspended from UNISON for Defending Freedom of Speech and the Right of Free Assembly
Run by its Officials for its Officials UNISON’s General Secretary
Dave Prentis knowingly allowed Union resources
to be used to get himself elected
One thing is certain – Prentis will certainly miss Linda Perks – who faithfully did his bidding, rules notwithstanding
On March 26th, as Labour’s local election campaign
got underway, as part of the false anti-Semitism campaign against Jeremy
Corbyn, various Zionist organisations organised their first ever ‘anti-racist’
demonstration, outside Parliament.
On the recent NHS demonstration
A counter demonstration was mounted by Jewish
Voice for Labour supported by Labour Against the Witchhunt (LAW) and other
groups. One of the demonstrators was Stan Keable, the Secretary of LAW.
Stan got into a conversation about the
Holocaust, in the course of which Stan stated that the Holocaust wasn’t only
caused by anti-Semitism (a statement of the obvious – anti-Semitism has existed
long before the Holocaust) and that the Zionist movement had collaborated with
the Nazis in the period leading up to the Holocaust.
Mark Fischer – a Prentis loyalist who chaired the disciplinary panel
One of the wing members of the Panel
Linda Crowther – one of the wing members of the Panel – silent throughout
Unknown to Stan his conversation had secretly been recorded and before long it was
placed on social media. This resulted in headlines in papers like The Standard and the Jewish
Chronicle. The next day local Tory
MP, Greg Hands sent out a tweet demanding action against Stan and Steve Cowan,
leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, where Stan was an employee, was only
too happy to oblige.
Stan was promptly
suspended and in May I represented Stan at his disciplinary hearing, the result
of which was that he was dismissed. As a
lay representative from Brighton and Hove I should not, have had to represent
Stan but when Stan approached UNISON’s London Regional Organiser, Steve Terry
for support he received none.
Maggie Ferncombe – London Regional Secretary and a fitting successor to Linda Perks
Terry’s advice was that
Stan should plead guilty. In a letter of
May 8th Terry advised Stan that:
‘the course that you
should take is to indicate that you regret any offence caused by your remarks
and plead mitigating circumstances.’
A supporter of Progress,
Terry should have declared a conflict of interest between his right-wing views
and those of Stan Keable. His own prejudices rendered him incapable of seeing
that there was only one issue, namely freedom of speech and the right of free
assembly of workers. Rights guaranteed under Articles 10 and 11 of the European
Convention of Human Rights. Terry however is a typical UNISON bureaucrat,
completely incapable of comprehending such issues.
On the recent NHS demonstration in Brighton
The two main charges laid
against Stan were:
1. That, in attending a counter
demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament on the 26th March 2018, you
knowingly increased the possibility of being challenged about your views and
subsequently proceeded to express views that were in breach of the Council’s Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion Policy and the Council’s Code of Conduct (‘Working with
integrity’ and ‘Working with the media’).
2. That you made inappropriate comments
which were subsequently circulated on social media which are deemed to be
insensitive and likely to be offensive and potentially in breach of the
Equality Act 2010 and/or the Council’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
Steve Terry could find
nothing wrong in disciplining workers for expressing their views.
It takes something for Jon Lansman’s blog to accuse someone of ballot rigging!
Clearly these charges
were a threat to all workers. The idea that by ‘causing offence’ Stan
was guilty of a disciplinary offence is outrageous. The right to free speech is meaningless if all
you have the right to do is to utter platitudes. Giving offence is integral to
freedom of speech unless you are
inciting people to racial or other forms of hatred (i.e. hurting or insulting
someone on the basis of an unalterable characteristic (age, disability etc.). Stan
was doing none of these things. He was criticising Zionism. See
picket outside UNISON Executive protesting at the attempt to rig the General Secretary election
picket of UNISON’s Executive meeting
Of course Terry was
unconcerned by such matters. It is doubtful that anything bar the size of his
remuneration is of any interest to him. It was not surprising that Terry, who
is not used to criticism from members, complained to his boss, Maggie Ferncombe,
the London Regional Secretary with whom I have crossed swords when she was the
South-East Regional Secretary.
On June 4th I was
called to an investigation hearing conducted by 2 more officials, Gail Adams and Tony Jones, who is himself a Labour councillor in
Reading! I have already published
the interview and you can read the whole interview here or you can listen to the tape of the
interview here. Suffice to say that the outcome of the investigation was as
I predicted. I was charged on 3 counts:
My defence, that the
principle conceded by UNISON in the case of Stan Keable was going to be used by
other Councils to attack the rights of other workers has come to pass. Paul
Jonson, an anti-social officer for Dudley Council has
just been suspended for attending a picket outside right-wing Labour MP Ian
Austen’s office and putting a post on Facebook which described Israel as a ‘racist endeavour.’
On Monday 8th October I was called
to a disciplinary hearing to face 3 charges.
That I had engaged
in disrespectful or intimidating behaviour, or had exposed Steve Terry to
didicule, embarrassment or contempt and I had violated his dignity.
That I hadn’t
maintained strict confidentiality over the kangaroo court procedures adopted
That I had broken,
disobeyed etc. union rules.
Those hearing my case –Chair Mark Fischer, Linda
Crowther and Maggie Cook of the National Executive Council, were clearly not
happy with the fact that I had secretly recorded
the investigation hearing. Union bureaucrats and their servants are always
happiest when they can operate in the dark so the first thing that happened
when we began was that everyone had to place their phone in a tray which was placed
out side the room. Unfortunately this trick doesn’t appear to have worked as my
phone had no difficulty picking up what took place and the transcript can be
Presenting officer Gail Adams CBE was most offended by my
suggestion that the hearing was a ‘stitch-up’. She emphasised that if I had
argued that someone else had put my blog post up or had had access to my blog
then she would have been more than willing to acquite me of the charges.
However Gail entirely missed the point. It was not that I denied
what I had said but that I justified it as being necessary in the
circumstances. The real crime in this
case was not what I had written about that miserable union bureaucrat Steve
Terry but what he had done to a union member.
I demonstrated beyond all doubt that there is no redress for union members when they
are sold out and betrayed by the union leadership. Back came the parroted
response that I had broken ‘the rules’ by subjecting Terry to ridicule,
contempt etc. I have to say that I have
no respect for someone who is willing to sacrifice a union member’s right to
free speech for the sake of the ‘rules’.
To me Terry is contemptible. Certainly I had not intimidated him, how
could I? By speaking on the phone? But
then the charge is that I may have
exposed Terry to ‘ridicule, embarrassment
or contempt.’ If the truth be told
then it is indeed ridiculous to behave as Terry did. Terry unfortunately shows
no signs of being embarrassed and as for contempt, surely that is the proper
reaction to a union official and Labour councillor who betrays his membership? As for violating the dignity of Terry, well
that assumes he had any to begin with.
The actual complaint was made by
Maggie Ferncombe, the London Regional Secretary who I had an encounter
with when she fulfilled the same role in the South East. Clearly this presented
me with a problem since the person who I had allegedly affronted, Steve Terry,
was not available for cross-examination. This is the basis of part of my
appeal, I had apparently humiliated etc. someone who is not giving evidence and
is unavailable. The relevant part of the
cross-examination is below, although you can look at the full transcript here:
Just imagine, in a court of law, you are accused of insulting,
intimidating etc. someone and then that person doesn’t give evidence but
someone who talked to him does. This is UNISON’s idea of justice. As you can
see I made Maggie Ferncombe, the London Regional Secretary and a fitting
successor to Linda Perks (see below). In essence she knew nothing.
[54:00] You made the complaint about me?
and yet the obvious thing would have been for him to have made the complaint.
Would it not?
can’t speak for Steve.
But you spoke to him.
can’t speak for Steve whether it’s obvious or not for him to make a complaint.
What I can say is that Steve raised it with me because of the subject matter.
He believed that it was an issue that I needed to be aware of, that there was a
potential, most regional organisers will come to me if they think there’s an
issue that the press may or may not be interested in, because we must be
prepared to have a response. He raised it with me and I then read your blog and
once I had read your blog that is when I decided I would make a complaint.
Can you enlighten us as to why he did not make a complaint?
You spoke to him but you have no idea why, you did not ask him?
You weren’t interested?
You did not invite him to make a complaint?
You did not think it was necessary for him to make a complaint?
think that was down to the member of staff (TG: clearly) I took my
responsibilities as a senior manager of the region to determine that I didn’t
think this was appropriate, I thought it was outside of our norms fact
and I took the decision to make the complaint. And in fact I informed Steve
that I had made the complaint.
But Steve had the right to make the complaint if he was aggrieved. Did he not?
All members of staff have the right to make a complaint.
So you have no idea, on the basis of your relationship with him, why he chose
not to make a complaint?
(after some considerable delay) I can only say that it is highly highly unusual
in my experience for a member of staff to make a complaint about a member.
Well maybe this case is maybe highly unusual so it wouldn’t be exceptional?
can’t speak for Steve.
What was the nature of your conversation with ST?
just explained that he said that there was an issue that was happening in that particular
branch, regarding a member and that he was going to be advising and that he thought
that I needed to be aware of it on the basis that it might attract interest
from the press and therefore we might be contacted as have most other of my
regional organisers over the years when there has been an issue going on with a
member of the branch that the press might be interested in. So that we were
The charges against me today are … that I was disrespectful, intimidating, I
exposed him to ridicule, embarrassment and contempt and it violated his
dignity. If we go through those. Did he say that I disrespected him?
did not have a great deal of conversation regarding how Steve felt regarding
the blog at all.
So you weren’t curious as to how he felt?
Steve didn’t offer how he felt when I had a conversation with him. Steve
offered that there was an issue I needed to be aware of in one of our branches
that I would need to be prepared for should the media decide to
Sorry he didn’t come to you and say ‘I’m
feeling intimidated as a result of the behaviour of Mr Greenstein?’
Did he say that he felt ridiculed or embarrassed or felt that I held him in
Did he say that I had violated his dignity?
So would you agree that these charges are entirely speculative? That they have
no basis or foundation and are not the subject of an allegation.
No, I don’t agree with that.
But nonetheless he did not make any complaint as to this nature did he?
No but the charges talk about conduct which may and I believe your conduct
So it may have exposed him but there is no evidence to suggest that it did
Well I haven’t really done an investigation into what…
The Chair, Mark Fischer, who is part of the Prentis right-wing of
the union, was not happy with my cross-examination. This favourite phrase was ‘Let’s stick to the facts.’ On one
occasion I was forced to respond that:
giving you the facts. You may not like them but I can’t give you any others!
Appendix 2 of the UNISON rule book has been written with the
express purpose of protecting unelected union officials from their own
members. As I repeatedly emphasised
during the hearing there is no redress or accountability of union officials and
that is the real crime in this case but of course no charges were ever brought
or contemplated being brought against Terry because the whole process was in
the hands of UNISON officials.
What my case demonstrates is the democratic
deficit in UNISON. UNISON is not a left-wing union. In the past 8
years, at a time of massive cuts in local government, it has failed to defend
its members’ jobs, conditions or pay. Indeed the union officials have fought
against any attempts to take action. Prentis is infamous for his lack of a backbone.
Despite the fact that UNISON has good policy
on Palestine and supports BDS it has also supported the false ‘anti-Semitism’
It is ironic that the Executive Officer who
was responsible for my case was Beth Bickerstaffe, the daughter-in-law of a
previous General Secretary, the late Rodney Bickerstaffe and before you ask I
am sure that the appointment process was open, transparent and fair! The irony
lies in the fact that Rodney Bickerstaffe, who was a supporter of Palestine, when
he spoke at a PSC AGM attacked the use of false accusations of anti-Semitism
against supporters of Palestine. This
understanding seems to have disappeared from his successors..
That is what the actions of Terry are about. He is a fulsome supporter of the idea that
support for the Palestinians is ‘anti-Semitic’ and in particular criticism of
Zionism. That is why Stan was abandoned and that is why I was subject to a
bogus ‘investigation’ the outcome of which was inevitable.
I was also charged with a breach of
confidentiality and although I was technically guilty I argued that in order to
bring the greater crime, Terry’s treachery, to light it was necessary to
publicise his crimes. However in the eyes of my accusers this defence carried
I made it clear that in the event of being
found guilty, I had no intention of pleading mitigation as I had done nothing
wrong. I was sentenced to the maximum possible punishment (bar expulsion) which
was 3 years suspension with loss of membership rights.
Officials Broke UNISON’s Election Rules
A fitting farewell to the ever loyal Linda Perks
As London Regional Secretary Linda Perks was Dave Prentis’s Fixer – Union rulers were there to be broken
this case with the breaking rules which occurred during the 2015 election for a
General Secretary. The culprit was the London Regional Secretary for Linda
Perks. Perks held a briefing, of which this is a recording for Regional
Organisers at UNISON’s Greater London Regional Office. Those attending were
paid UNISON staff, attending in work time.
clear contravention of the election procedures, which instruct staff that they
should not in work time “carry out any activities
intended or likely to … …affect the election or candidature of any person“,
Perks gave detailed instructions to staff about campaigning for Prentis. She made
it clear that she was speaking as a manager to staff by repeatedly referring
them to Regional Managers.
“You clearly cannot be caught
out saying ‘vote for Dave’” she says, and warns
staff to be careful that, if there are witnesses to conversations in which they
are lobbying for Dave Prentis to be sure that they are “friendly witnesses.” She names the official in whose
(UNISON) office Dave Prentis’ election leaflets will be kept but advises staff
not to mention this by email.
was unequivocal evidence of the most blatant disregard for UNISON Rules on the
part of the Greater London Regional Office. Paid officials joke about using the
name of the Regional Convenor to justify distributing election leaflets for
Dave Prentis – and about how to distract branches which they describe as “the opposition.” This is the same office that I came into conflict with.
The case eventually wound up with
the Union Certification Officer who confirmed that Unison broke the election rules.
See for example
In her ruling
the Assistant Certification Officer, Mary Stacey, found:
3. ‘that the Union breached paragraph 51 of
the General Secretary 2015 Election Procedures (“the Election
Procedures”) in that the Union’s
funds, property and resources were impermissibly used to campaign for a
particular candidate (Mr Dave Prentis) by reason of the following matters
a meeting of all Greater London Regional Staff held at Congress House at 2pm 21
October 2015, during work time the Regional Secretary of the London Region
openly campaigned for Mr Prentis re-election for General Secretary and directed
her staff to campaign for Mr Prentis during working time, and was assisted and
supported by her Regional Management Team.
109 the impermissible use of UNISON resources by
Ms Perks by using a workplace meeting during work time to promote Mr Prentis as
a candidate and belittle all the others, and constitutes campaigning.
summary, the meeting was used by the Regional Secretary, openly during work time
and with the support of her RMT to campaign for Mr Prentis’ re-election. She
instructed her staff also to campaign for Mr Prentis in defiance of the
election Procedures and directed them to report to their line manager within
139. It is
apparent from the transcript that Ms Perks knew that she was breaching UNISON
rules in the meeting and seeking to enlist the collusion of her staff.
143. It is
clear that leaflets in support of Mr Prentis were to be covertly stored at the
Greater London Regional office in breach of the Election Procedures. Ms Perks
repeatedly tells her staff not to leave an email trail about using the Greater
London Regional office as a distribution hub for the leaflets:
response to a question Ms Perks tells her staff that they should tell the
members to lie about having received campaign material in support of Mr Prentis
from full time officers and instead: “They
got them from the regional convener is all
.you need to tell them, they got them from the regional
convener or the regional convener team is perfectly fine” she said. It would have been a lie as the Greater London
Regional staff are not regional conveners
154. No matter
how many times one re-reads the transcript, the shock does not diminish. It is
flagrant: Ms Perks’ tone is not just confident and swaggering in so openly
breaking the rules, but chilling in its brazenness and demonstration of
Linda Perks was suspended as it was an
obvious and deliberate breach of the union’s election rules. It is difficult to
think of a case that was more deserving of summary dismissal than this one. Perks
was found however given a final warning. As Ms Stacey found:
213. On the
conclusion of the internal disciplinary process she was given a final written
warning and received a disciplinary transfer away from the Greater London Region.
At the time of the hearing the Applicants had assumed that having been compulsorily
moved away from the Greater London Region she would now be based in another
part of the country. It emerged during the hearing that she had moved to the
Union’s newly refurbished head office approximately 1/2 mile from the London
Regional Office retaining her grade and status. There was no evidence as to her
job title or job description at the hearing. After the hearing both sides
supplied further information. Normally evidence submitted after the hearing
would not be admitted, but since all sides seemed keen for the ACO to have a
complete picture and the evidence is not disputed, I record that Ms Perks now
has the title of National Secretary and is engaged on “strategic
other words the disciplinary process was carried out with a nod and a wink.
What obviously happened was that Linda Perks agreed to a disciplinary process
whereby it was guaranteed that she would not be dismissed and nor would she
suffer any financial or other penalty. She was moved out of the Greater London
Region, half the mile down the road. This is the contempt union rules are held
in when those who make them break them.
Initially the Union’s officials and
Prentis even denied that the tape recording of the meeting was genuine. They
alleged it had been ‘tampered with’.
As the Mary Stacey found:
218. On the
same day (11.1.16.) the Union’s President and Vice President issued an email with
a wide distribution to the NEC….
As you know a
number of serious allegations have been made against our union in London. The
complaints are being investigated.
Whilst it is
not our practice to comment on an ongoing investigation on this occasion we
believe there is one aspect that warrants public disclosure. This can be done
without compromising the rights of those involved in this matter. The complaint
presented by Jon Rogers relies heavily on an anonymous recording. Given the
seriousness of this tape the union commissioned independent forensic expert
report of the full recording. The Presidential team and the Trustees of the
union now have the full report from the Audio Forensic Service.
analysis was undertaken by an accredited audio specialist and the company is
used by the High Court for audio evidence. The report clearly states that
“the probability of tampering is
exceptionally high”. On a scale of 1(low) to 5 (high), the Independent
Expert rates the tape as 5/5.
219. This is
quite an extraordinary email, especially given that UNISON accept the legitimacy
of the tape. In his evidence Mr McKenzie said he did not know about the forensic
analysis. If it indeed exists” it was not passed to the Investigating
Officer, contrary to the assertion in the email. It begs so many questions:
Does this report exist? If so, where is it? Why wasn’t it given to’Mr McKenzie
if it so conclusively demonstrated that the tape was some kind of fake? Why
didn’t Mr McKenzie mention it in his report or ask to see it when he must have
known about it and received the President’s email? Why send the email? Mr
McKenzie was clear in his evidence that he had always found the tape persuasive
and the Union has conceded its accuracy and authenticity.
President’s email is thus a classic example of an attempt by the victors to write
the history (regardless of accuracy) and denigrate those whom they see as their
Unfortunately Ms Stacey went on to find
that because there was no proof that similar behaviour had occurred outside
London, the result should stand. This was an amazing position to take. If there has been a flagrant breach of
election rules in one part of the country then that should have resulted in an
inexorable inference that the whole election was corrupt. It is certain that
Prentis had other union officials doing the same around the country. The fact
that no other tape recordings surfaced is immaterial. As Stacey found:
226. … there
was no specific evidence to find that abuses such as occurred in the Greater
London Region were occurring in other parts of the country. Witnesses and
evidence has not been presented to me to make such primary findings.
Stacey’s finding over the ‘penalty’
that Perks suffered is damning and shows the utter cynicism of UNISON’s
officials when those breaching the rules happen to be those in control of the
disciplinary sanction applied to the Greater London Regional Secretary for her
actions … is revealing. She has remained an employee at the same pay,
seniority and level, moving to an office approximately half a mile from her previous
office. Although she has received a final written warning, … she remains a
very senior employee enjoying all the fruits of high office and long service
based in the Union’s prestigious Head Office working on undefined
“strategic” projects. Remarkable clemency and lenience in the circumstances
and perhaps not a deterrent penalty to decourager les autres.
subsequent leisurely disciplinary proceedings of Ms Perks and outcome do not
inspire confidence or serve as a deterrent to future over zealous paid
officials. Some might think the move to National Secretary in Head Office on
unspecified strategic projects retaining all pay and benefits represents reward
rather than punishment, although she has also endured the imposition of a final
is a good account of what happened in respect of Perks in the 853 Blog which serves Greenwich and the
surrounding area. Greenwich Labour candidate selected despite being
condemned by judge. In September Perks retired from her
position in UNISON. At her retirement function Dave Prentis spoke about the debt that he felt to her: “Absolutely
packed house to thank Linda Perks, one of our longest serving regional
secretaries. We will all miss her” For once Prentis was telling the
truth. He will certainly miss his