Banned on eve of branch elections

Evan Pritchard - centre  - with cloth cap

Was it fair to issue complaints just before election?

  ON Wednesday the 28th, March,  the Unite Greater Manchester Community Branch convened for its tri-annual AGM amid some consternation about the banning of two of its members.  I had just bought some hot cross buns from Booths near Media City and I thought I'd pop in to give my comradely greetings at the Community Branch meeting at the Unite Salford Quay's office. 

To my surprise, as I entered the canteen just as pandemonium erupted I was to learn during the various loud verbal altercations and banter about the suspension of two Community Branch members from the AGM.  In the commotion it became clear that on the eve of the AGM meeting that Mr. John Pearson and Mr. Chris McBride, had both been served with letters informing them that they were subject to a complaint of such magnitude that they were now under investigation, and consequently according to the union's disciplinary process under Rule 27  'should be suspended from holding any office or representing the Union in any capacity, pending the outcome of that investigation'.

Curiously they were served  with these orders, the very day before the two men were running for office at last night's AGM.  John Pearson was standing for election as chair against the present incumbent Evan Pritchard.  Last night, this ruling was interpreted as meaning that both Mr. Pearson and Mr. McBride were not allowed to attend the meeting, and thus their nominations for officer positions were not put to the branch meeting and Evan Pritchard was elected unopposed.

Why is such a heavy hand being employed to proceed with a complaint under Rule 27:4.?

Why were written notices only delivered on the very eve of the AGM?  When Rule 27:4 clearly states that
'A member shall be given written notice ...... of any such suspension as soon as is reasonably practicable.'

After all the North West Region Finance and General Purposes Committee that ruled on this complaint, met on Tuesday, 20 March 2018, and the notices to the suspending Pearson and McBride from holding office were only delivered on Tuesday, 27 March.  Oddly this was the day before the branch elections.

This is troubling coming as it does on the heels of another recent ruling by the Assistant Trade Union Certification Officer that in the case of McFadden v Unite: 'Breach of union rule decision'; where it was found that the union had acted beyond its powers in trying to legislate on the activities of individuals at a private event.  In the Pearson and McBride case under Rule 27:4 .1 'A member under disciplinary investigation may not attend: meetings of his/her own branch'.  This has been the case since the Unite Rule Book was been updated in 2015.

People of fair minds may wonder here if this additional sub-rule 27:4.1, might not be mis-applied, perhaps by people of vindictive or vexatious intent to invent complaints to ban others whom they might not take a shine to for whatever reason; political or personal?   

In the Pearson and McBride case under consideration here, one must wonder about the timing of the issuing of these notices on the brink of the elections for AGM positions for which they had been nominated for office. 

Unite's Rule 27 does not state that a member will be suspended from participating in branch elections, it merely says the 'Regional Committee may suspend a member under this rule from holding any office or representing the Union ...'.  This does not seem to prevent a member standing for office, because any complaint against the member may fail and the suspension could well be lifted.  Hence, one may ask why were Pearson and McBride prevented from standing for office at  last week's AGM of the Unite Greater Manchester Community Branch ? 

******

Alec McFadden asks Unite to behave 'gracefully'

The statement below is Alec McFadden's legal 
representative's response to Alex Flynn,  Head of Unite 
media and campaigns: 

‘Mr McFadden’s challenge was not technical.  It was based not merely on his vehement denial of the trumped up allegation but also on the blatantly unfair procedure used against him which included the refusal of both the disciplinary and the appeal panel to even call the complainant to appear before them, thus preventing them or Mr McFadden questioning the complainant.  It was based also on the refusal of the appeal panel to even consider evidence that the allegation against Mr Mc Fadden was fabricated. Unite charged Mr McFadden under a rule which Unite, which the ACO (Assistant Certification Officer) held did not apply, and he rejected Unite’s remarkable defence that the rule meant the opposite of what it said. 

 

‘To suggest now that Unite may bring another, different charge under a different rule more than two years after the allegation was made, demonstrates nothing less than persecution of Mr McFadden.  It is impossible to see how the Unite disciplinary process (already found by the ACO to be fatally flawed) could ever have the appearance of justice if it is to rest on bringing repeated charges at two year intervals until a conviction is finally secured.  Unite has spectacularly failed to conduct its disciplinary proceedings fairly or in accordance with its own rules and it should now accept the CO’s findings gracefully and let Mr McFadden return to his valuable work for the union.’

Unite replies in Alec McFadden case

Alec McFadden v Unite the Union 

 Northern Voices contacted the Unite Press Office

for a reply to Alec McFadden's press statement, and for

Unite's interpretaion of the Trade Union certification

officer's ruling.  The union's reply is published in full below:

Hi Brian

Gail forwarded me your email seeking a response to Mr McFadden’s press release. Please find our response below.

A Unite spokesman said: “Unite does not tolerate sexual harassment or discrimination and is committed to equality and fairness for all. The decision by the Certification Officer was based on a procedural and technical challenge and does not appear to make any difference to the findings of the investigation that found Mr McFadden to have a case to answer. Unite will consider the full judgement when it is delivered and assess whether it is appropriate to recharge Mr McFadden under our disciplinary rules.”

All the best

Alex

Alex Flynn

Head of media and campaigns

Unite the union

McFadden case: Unite breaks its own rules

Below Northern Voices publishes the decision of the trade union certification officer over the procedure used by the Unite union to investigate and discipline Alec McFadden, over a complaint of alleged inappropriate behaviour by him in October 2015.  The trade union certification officer's decision shows that the Unite union, in its disciplinary procedure against Mr. McFadden, exceeded its powers.  This decision is based on a failure of natural justice by the Unite union in the manner in which it treated Mr. McFadden:

Press Release 11th October 2017

Alec McFadden's press statement last night begins by declaring:
 'UNITE the Union has been found to have acted outside of its jurisdiction in debarring veteran Trade Unionist and Community Campaigner Alec McFadden from his elected office.'

DECISION OF THE ASSISTANT CERTIFICATION OFFICER ON APPLICATION BY MR ALEC MCFADDEN MADE UNDER SECTION 108A OF THE TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992 

 Mr Alec McFadden vs Unite the Union

The Assistant Certification Officer, having considered the three preliminary issues set out in the decision in these proceedings dated 24 July 2017, has concluded that the disciplinary proceedings by Unite the Union against Mr McFadden and the consequent penalties imposed upon Mr McFadden were in breach of the rules of the union.  He therefore makes a declaration to that effect, pursuant to sections 108A and 108B of the 1992 Act.
The Assistant Certification Officer will give his reasons for his decision in writing shortly; however this decision is provided in advance of those written reasons so as to make it clear to the parties that the hearings in these proceedings fixed for 9 and 10 October 2017 are now unnecessary; and he directs that those hearings be vacated.
It is not clear to the Assistant Certification Officer whether Mr McFadden seeks any remedy under section 108B of the 1992 Act other than the above declaration.  If he does, he must set out what remedy or remedies he seeks in writing to the Assistant Certification Officer and to the union by 17 October 2017; and the union shall respond thereto in writing to the Assistant certification Officer and to Mr McFadden by 31 October 2017.

Jeffrey Burke QC 3 October 2017

TUC Crown's Representative to TUC-JCC

AFTER it was decided that Alec McFadden was not eligible to stand for election as the new interim North West representative on the TUC-Joint Consultative Committee, Stephen Hall from Bolton Trade Union Council was appointed to serve in Mr McFadden's place.  This replacement follows a dispute over an internal complaint against McFadden by a member of the Unite union.*  Details of this story have already been published on this Blog.  Tameside TUC in Greater Manchester also submitted a nomination for the post but it was claimed that this arrived too late for consideration.
No-one it seems, least of all Stephen Hall, wanted a coronation, but it could be that the TUC preferred a coronation rather than an election because it is cheaper.


*  Rule 27 Investigations:
The Regional Secretary advised that with regard to the disciplinary of Mr. Alec McFadden, the Rule 27 Panel had decided that there was a case to answer.  Following Mr. McFadden's appeal in London, the appeal committee found that he had been found guilty of inappropriate behavior and that he be removed from office, with a bar on holding office both for the remainder of the present electoral period and for the next electoral period and that he be required to attend an Equalities Training Course.

Public Interest & Trade Union Disciplinaries

Editor's Statement:

AN Anonymous commentator referring to our publication of a post on this Blog entitled 'Trade Unionist Discipline: Alec McFadden case'  questioned our decision to publish Mr. McFadden's account of what happened to him.  We did this after an approach was sent  to us by the 'Defend Alec McFadden' campaign. 
Our Anonymous critic wrote: 
'You said you don't have enough evidence to form an opinion. You shouldn't then be posting this as it makes you look like you're supporting him and endorsing this article. on Trade Unionist Disciplined: Alec McFadden case.'
We published both the statement from Mr. McFadden's campaign and followed it up with a response to Northern Voices from Gail Cartmail,  Assistant General Secretary of Unite the Union in which she declared:

'In response to your email, Unite does not comment on its internal disciplinary proceedings at all, beyond saying that we believe all the correct procedures were followed in the case highlighted.'
Regards,
Gail (Gail Cartmail,  Assistant General Secretary , Unite the Union,)

Northern Voices took the view that it was in the public interest to release the McFadden statement, as the story had already been reported in the Liverpool Echo (13th, Sept. 2016), when we came to publish the story on the 19th, Oct. 2016.  We leave it to our readers to decide for themselves on the justice or not of the case against Mr. McFadden.

Unite Assistant General Secretary Responds

FOR purposes of balance on behalf of Northern Voices, I wrote an e-mail to the Assistance General Secretary of Unite the Union, requesting the union's response to the statement from the Alec McFadden Defence Campaign.   See below for the details which are self-explanatory: 

Dear Gail, 

I'm sorry to send this to you but Mick Whittley (North West regional officer) is not available at present.  The Northern Voices Blog has already published a post defending Alec McFadden from Liz Epps without comment:  see below.  Can you please give me the Unite position on this case?  We want to be balanced in our reporting of this case.

Brian Bamford:  Joint-Editor of Northern Voices 

Brian, 

In response to your email, Unite does not comment on its internal disciplinary proceedings at all, beyond saying that we believe all the correct procedures were followed in the case highlighted.

Regards,
Gail
Gail Cartmail,  Assistant General Secretary , Unite the Union,

128 Theobalds Road, 
London. WC1X 8TN

Trade Unionist Disciplined: Alec McFadden case

Below is a campaign statement that has been sent to Northern Voices
by the Campaign to defend Alec McFadden.  Though we have made some
investigations about this problem, Northern Voices does not have enough
information to justify us taking sides at this stage.  In the light of this it has
been decided to publish the statement below in full without comment, which
was sent to us by Liz Epps on behalf of the campaign to defend Alec McFadden.

ALEC McFadden, a stalwart of the trade union movement for over 50 years, has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice which is having terrible repercussions. He needs your support. Alec is known and respected throughout the country for his work as a union organiser, and for his role since 1996 in running the Salford Unemployed and Community Resource Centre which has provided help and assistance to thousands of people. He is a committed campaigner against sexism, racism, fascism and opposition to benefits sanctions. He suffered a serious facial wound when a fascist attacked him with a knife at his home on the Wirral.

Alec organised a very successful Anti- Austerity March in October 2015. At the end of the protest, on 3rd October 2015, the marchers had a meal at Smith’s restaurant in Eccles, Salford where Alec was the compere for the evening with a number of speakers including Rebecca Long Bailey MP for Salford, Steve North Unison branch secretary and the then Mayor of Salford Ian Stewart. Also present were other local councillors and the press.  Five weeks later Alec was informed by Unite (13 November) that it ‘had received a formal complaint from one of our members about your actions during the March against Austerity from Thursday 1st October to Sunday 4th October.’ It was alleged he had breached Unite’s Dignity and Harassment Policy. No further details were divulged. Two weeks later Alec had received a further letter from Unite (25 November) which told him no more than the identity of the complainant and that she had made a complaint which ‘relates to alleged incidents which took place between 1st and 4th October 2015 towards another Unite member’.

Investigation

Unknown to Alec, witness statements were made by the complainant and two supportive witnesses.  On 6 January 2016he complainant and one witness were interviewed by a Unite Investigation panel on 6 January 2016, again without the knowledge of Alec. So Alec had no opportunity to challenge them, nor was the panel able to put any response from Alec to the witnesses, since the panel had not disclosed the witness statements or even the nature of the allegation to Alec.  It had certainly not asked him for his side of the story.

Alec was then called to attend before the Investigation Panel on 22nd January.  By then all Alec knew was what was in the two letters he had received. He had no idea what was alleged against him.  The Investigation Panel chose not to share with him the statements it had obtained from the complainant and her witness or the notes made of their interviews by the panel. So Alec had no idea of the case against him and no chance to prepare a defence.   When the interview with Alec commenced he was still in complete ignorance of the date, time, place and nature of the alleged ‘incidents’.  It was not until half way through the interview that he was shocked to be told that he was alleged to have slapped the complainant on the bottom at the dinner in the middle of the restaurant.  He was not told that the complainant’s witness had added ‘the lights were quite bright and we were very visible to our fellow marchers and other guests’.  Alec denied the allegation.  The panel asked no further questions about it.  Neither the complainant nor her witnesses were present when Alec was interviewed, and since he had not been provided with their witness statements or notes of the interview, he had no opportunity to point out inconsistencies or contradictions in their evidence.  Nevertheless, the investigation panel found that there was a case for him to answer.

Disciplinary

Next Alec was called to a formal Unite disciplinary hearing on 15th April 2016. Before hearing Alec’s defence or his witnesses, he was startled to be told by the Chair of the Disciplinary Panel: ‘From what has been presented to us, in all probability, some misconduct has taken place.’ This conclusion was based on solely on their reading of the report of the Investigation Panel.

The Disciplinary Panel refused a request that the complainant and her witnesses should attend and give evidence to the Panel because it would be ‘inappropriate.’ So Alec and his representative were denied the chance to question them, put his case to them or explore the serious inconsistencies in their account of the alleged incident. Likewise, the Panel denied itself the opportunity to hear the complainant and her witness in person so as to weigh up the credibility of their account. Even Alec’s offer that the complainant be questioned without Alec being present was refused.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, the Disciplinary Panel reached the same conclusion at the end of the hearing that it had before the case began: ‘that in all probability, Mr McFadden did commit the offence of slapping [the complainant] on the bottom.’ The conclusion was expressed to be based solely on the evidence of the Complainant’s witness, since it said that to disbelieve her statement ‘would be tantamount to an accusation of lying.’ How the Panel could determine whether she was lying or not without hearing and seeing her give her evidence and being questioned about it was not explained. Nor was it explained on what basis the Panel were able to disregard the evidence of Alec and his witnesses (that they had neither seen anything untoward nor heard anyone speak of such a thing during the course of a long evening during which both Alec and the Complainant were present, at one stage sitting next to each other.) The Disciplinary Panel decided that Alec must be banned from office in Unite and attend Unite’s Dignity and Respect Training Course.

Appeal

Alec appealed to an Appeal Panel of Unite’s EC. Again Alec’s rep asked that the complainant and her witness attend, give their evidence orally and be subject to questions from him and the Panel. He emphasised that inconsistent and contradictory evidence of the Complainant and her witnesses should be subject to at least some questioning and scrutiny as no such questioning or scrutiny had occurred at the Investigation or Disciplinary stages. This request was dismissed out of hand and the Panel refused to hear for themselves the evidence against Alec or allow it to be questioned.

Alec provided the panel with even more witness statements of those present in the restaurant including the MP and even the Restaurant manager and staff, all of whom clearly stated they saw or heard nothing of the alleged incident which according to the complainant took place in view of everyone.

Particularly significant was that Alec’s rep also sought to introduce the evidence of a Mr S who had, in August 2016, been told by the complainant that she had not been assaulted by Alec and that she had been pressurised into making the complaint.  The Appeal Panel refused to entertain this evidence on the ground that ‘it was an unsubstantiated account of an alleged conversation with the complainant that had been compellingly and comprehensively rebutted by her.’   This appears to be false.  There was no evidence that Mr S’s account had ever been put to the complainant - let alone that she rebutted it.  As noted, Alec’s request for her attendance had been refused. It was not suggested that she had made a further, undisclosed statement rebutting Mr S – such a statement would surely have been produced had it been made.

The Appeal Panel’s refusal to entertain this crucial exonerating piece of defence evidence can only have been because it fundamentally undermined the prosecution case. That is a travesty of justice.

In the light of that it was no surprise that the Appeal panel upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Panel. When his rep asked how long Alec would be suspended from Office he was told it was for at least 5 years! That is until Alec is 75.

Breach of Confidentiality + Media Smears

If that were not bad enough, what followed will shock and concern every trade union activist. Confidential details of the case, including a statement by the complainant were leaked to the media. This could have only come from someone within Unite.  The angle the media took was to attack Alec and link him to Jeremy Corbyn so as to undermine him.  Alec had been one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters and articles in the Telegraph, Times, Liverpool Echo and Guardian were spun to try to damage Corbyn and denigrate Alec.

The TUC

In September 2016, the TUC informed Alec that in addition to the sanctions imposed by Unite, the TUC also banned him from holding his elected position representative to and as chair of the TUCJCC. That is not an ‘office’; it is certainly not an office in Unite and besides Alec’s position on the TUCJCC is also because he is a member of Unison.  More significantly still, the TUC has no power to prevent Trades Union Councils nominating who they wish to represent them on the TUCJCC, the TUC has no disciplinary powers over members of affiliated unions and had held no hearing to allow Alec to present a case before imposing such a penalty.  But the penalty imposed by the TUC went yet further than that imposed by Unite: Alec was barred from unofficial pre-meetings of the TUCJCC and from attending any TUC event, including those open to the public!

Questions have even been raised about Alec’s employment.

Facebook Lies

Now new evidence has emerged from the Facebook postings of the complainant.  She has changed her mind again and decided to revert to claiming that the incident did take place and she has broadcast details of the allegation along with grossly offensive comments about Alec.  Even more disturbingly, having linked to an article about an (unrelated) Employment Tribunal case against UNITE for sexual harassment she made the following comment in relation to her own case:

‘In my experience the equalities officer was invisible, the questioning that I was subject to would not be out of place among rape apologists, the concern for the person making the complaint was non–existent’.

This is a quite remarkable claim since one of the most unjust features of this drawn out disciplinary process is that the complainant was never questioned about her allegation - let alone in the manner she describes.  She was never present to face any questions put to her by Alec, his rep or the Disciplinary or Appeal Panels which took the decisions.  Before the Investigatory Panel the notes show that she was never asked even to describe the alleged incident; her prepared statement was simply accepted as fact. The sole questions about the alleged incident were: ‘…you had to ask him to move is this when the incident happened? And if so what kind of a slap was it?’  To which the answer was ‘Yes.  It was a hard slap; I was shocked and carried on walking…’  The allegation that the Unite Investigation Panel were behaving like ‘rape apologists’ is both a very serious allegation and one that is totally refuted by the notes.

This Facebook posting casts further serious doubt on the credibility of the complainant.

Unfortunately there is no further appeal under Unite rules and Alec appears to have no alternative but to take his case to the Certification Officer, given the appalling consequences that he is facing.

Every trade unionist should fight to root sexual harassment out of our movement and ensure our events are safe places for all members. But there is also no place in our movement for those who make false accusations against individuals and the union, then broadcast false and wholly misleading details of the matter on social media. More than that, no-one should be convicted without a fair trial.

Defend Alec

Alec has a long and proud record of promoting and encouraging women to get active in the union movement, he has never been subject to these kind of accusations in over 50 years of service in the movement.  Natural justice is a requirement of Unite’s disciplinary rules (rule 27.2) but Alec has been denied it.  Here, that denial was in refusing Alec the right to question those who made allegations against him and in refusing to hear a witness who had vital evidence for his defence.  The witness statements of many respected people present at the restaurant where the alleged incident took place have been simply ignored or discounted.  He has had confidential details of an internal union matters leaked to the press where it was spun to attack Jeremy Corbyn.  He has now discovered that his accuser has put on social media claims which are clearly both untrue and bring the union into disrepute.

He has been removed and suspended from office for over 5 years and the TUC has tried to remove him from elected positions that are completely unconnected to his membership of Unite.

Questions for Unite

We call on the Executive Committee of UNITE and the General Secretary to review this case as a matter of urgency.  As trade unionists we fight on a daily basis against injustice; we cannot allow this to happen to Alec.  Please support our call for a review of this decision and an investigation into the scandalous claims made by the complainant and the manner in which confidential information was leaked to the Tory media to be used to attack both Alec and Jeremy Corbyn.

Email: defend.alec.mcfadden@hotmail.com   10th October 2016

Printed and Published by defend Alec McFadden campaign

North West Union Boss Banned From Office

ALEC McFadden, a prominent figure in the North West trade union movement, has been forced out of office following allegations of 'inappropriate behaviour’ on a march from Wirral in Merseyside to the Tory Party Conference in Manchester last year. 
Mr. McFadden, as well as being a leading member of the Unite union in the North West, has been for many years the North West regional representative on the Joint Consultative Committee of the Trade Union Councils in the UK*.   It is now clear that Mr. McFadden has also had to stand down from this position on the TUC-JCC, and that nomination papers have been sent out for the affiliates to the Trade Union Councils in the North West to nominate a replacement for this position as well. 
Talking to the Liverpool Echo on the 13th, September this year, Mr. McFadden, a high profile member of Unite, strongly denied any wrong doing. 
But following a disciplinary hearing of the Unite union Mr. McFadden has been told that he can’t hold any position of power within the union. 
Speaking to the Liverpool Echo McFadden said: 
‘It is correct that I was subjected to a disciplinary process in relation to charges I firmly denied and continue to reject in their totality.’ 
McFadden added: 
‘There was an agreement that I should attend an equalities training course which I am delighted to do.  I have sought details of available courses and am awaiting responses.  My membership of Unite was never in doubt and the fact that I remain a member of Unite has been confirmed in recent correspondence from the union.’ 

He said that he had been contacted by national newspapers ‘which report having been told that I was expelled from my trade union Unite’.

He said:  ‘That allegation is false.’ 

The 4-day People’s March Against Austerity 2015 began in Holylake in the constituency of former Tory MP Ester McVey.

Organised by trade unions, including Merseyside TUC & MrMcFadden, they joined a group of marchers who had started in south Wales.

A  Unite union spokesman said:  ‘Unite does not tolerate sexual harassment in any form.  Unite can conform that the matter has been dealt with in line with the union’s disciplinary procedures.  We are supporting the victim & the individual concerned has been removed from holding office in Unite.’
At the time of writing Northern Voices does have the precise details of the alleged offence Mr. McFadden is supposed to have committed, and while we do not condone any form of sexual harassment, we cannot at this moment comment on the basic justification for the charge against Mr. McFadden.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mersey-union-firebrand-alec-mcfadden-11881611#ICID=sharebar_facebook

*  Trades Union Councils' Joint Consultative Committee:

Trades Union Councils represent an important form of union organisation: local trade union branches acting together in pursuit of a common agenda within the community. The capacity for a reinvigorated Trades Union Council to take action and to mobilise workers in support of campaigns is vast. Trades Union Councils should act on this by working with trade union branches to build organisation locally, but they must also take a lead in forging links with other parts of the community. Crucial to this is identifying issues on which unions and other organisations share a common agenda – an agenda based on the pursuit of social justice.
Our argument has to be that only through union strength can we win rights at work and deliver a better quality of life for people throughout society. Trades Union Councils need to make the case for a broad coalition, which tackles injustices, both in the workplace and in the community. 

John McDonnell & an Alternative Strategy

THE Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, is attending the Closing the Gap Financial Exclusion Conference as part of convening a series of public events to broaden the debate around economics in Britain.

�We have established a series of meetings with trade unions, the TUC, and a range of third sector organisations, think tanks and educational establishments�.We need to listen to new ideas, because the economy needs them�. Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell

CLOSING THE GAP CONFERENCE
DISCUSS AND CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC STRATEGY
Friday 29th APRIL 10.0AM - 4.00 PM
AJ Bell Stadium Irlam Salford M30 7WH

Speakers include: John McDonnell MP Shadow Chancellor

Closing the Gap Financial Exclusion Conference

By: Alec McFadden

SINCE the onset of the financial crisis,  recession and the governments/ austerity policy, the nature of debt and personal finance problems facing households across Britain and Salford has been changing.

A major factor in that change has been that for a long time many price rises have outstripped average income growth. The gap between income relevant inflation and earnings growth for low income households has been significant for a number of years. As a result many households have been driven into arrears on basic household bills, and the traditional model for debt problems in Salford  has moved from being �change of circumstance� focussed, to �deficit budget� focussed model.

Although household incomes for all groups have fallen in real terms since the recession, low to middle income households feel the squeeze particularly acutely because they spend a greater proportion of their income on essentials than higher income households.

 A new model of debt problems has emerged in Salford; a deficit budget model that leaves households even more vulnerable to income shocks.  In the �deficit budget� focussed model of a debt problem a person/household finds that the increased cost of essential-living items outstrips their income and they begin to fall into arrears on some household bills such as rent, energy, water or telephone bills. Whilst different households respond differently to this situation, it has been well documented that many households cut expenditure significantly in an attempt to maintain a functioning budget. Cutting back on essentials included cutting back on food.

Problem debt need no longer have a specific �cause� such as unemployment, illness, or relationship breakdown.  Instead problem debt can be the result of nothing more that the slow erosion of a household budget in the face of ever-increasing bills. This model of problem debt means that relatively small levels of total debt can trigger severe financial difficulties due to a lack of budget flexibility.  For those households at the front line of these economic struggles, it can be difficult to see a way out.

Salford Unemployed & Community Resource Centre (SUCRC)  has witnessed this shift in personal debt problems first hand. Our advisers have reported increasingly over recent years that more callers have deficit budgets � where their income doesn�t match their regular expenditure.  Our advisors have also had to help people with a growing number of different debt types � from the emergence of payday loans, to an increase in telephone arrears. In fact nearly all debt types we record at SUCRC have seen record numbers in the last few years. This is reflective of an increasingly insecure labour market e.g zero hour contracts , a changing benefits system that uses sanctions to stop benefits and a changing society, one which has a very different attitude to and access to traditional credit products.  With a possible  rise in interest rates , we are also concerned that many more may fall into debt as their day-to-day essential living costs reach a tipping point.

Peoples attitude to debt is also changing. For many people falling behind on household bills doesn�t constitute a �debt� problem and as such they may be less likely to get help from advice services like SUCRC.  This is a serious concern; despite the changing nature of debt problems in Salford, advice still works and the earlier people seek advice, the better outcomes they will have.

The role of Salford Credit Union is vital for the whole community to help tackle the problem of debt and poverty in our society.  All the money our Credit Unions have is member�s money and the people that need it most can�t always repay their loans. 

Therefore, the Credit Unions (peoples banks) need support and investment to underwrite loans to members at a low interest rate.  That investment could come from: 

�      Churches

�      Trade Unions

�      Council/government

The higher the level of underwriting, the lower the risk of bad debts and the lower the interest rate.  We would like to see a future strategy by the government to support Credit Unions by appointing a Secretary of State for Credit Unions and councils to appoint a cabinet member for Credit Unions.

These are just some of the areas which this conference will address.

Keynote speakers will include:

Eccles MP Rebecca Long Bailey & Salford Councillor Paul Dennett.

In addition, John McDonnell MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Paula Barker, Unison North West Regional Convenor and Steve Higginson secretary of Liverpool CASA Unite Community Branch  have also confirmed they will  speak.  

We are also delighted that Dr Richard Head and his team will speak at the event.

Mark Serwotka, General Secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union and Steve Turner, Assistant General Secretary of Unite have also been invited to speak. 

This free event is organised by SUCRC and is supported by Salford Credit Union and Salford City Council. Refreshments and food will be provided.

Trades Council Missionaries in Local Communities

ALEC McFadden the North West TUC JCC delegate, has described the local trade union councils as the missionaries of the trade unions in the communities.  In a composite motion from Merseyside County TUC and Greater Manchester County TUC the Annual Trades Union Council 2015 Conference called upon the Trade Union Congress to admit a delegate to move a motion at the Congress.

The motion pointed out that 'Trade Union Councils have been the bridge between trade unions and local communities [and that] they have given guidance and support to local community groups' campaigns including opposing the bedroom tax, library closures and welfare benefit cuts whilst explaining to those same groups the effects of government cuts and why trade unions are in dispute and eliciting support for those disputes amongst the general public.'
'Trades Union Councils are the TUC in the community,' declared Mr. McFadden, 'and we are asking that our consistent work is fully recognised and that one delegate from the national conference is allowed to attend and move our motion as a delegate.' 

TUC Conference Blacklist Motion & Mr. Tapp

GEORGE Tapp, injured two weeks ago on a picket when a car ran into him, spoke yesterday to Northern Voices in the trauma ward at the Salford Royal Hospital about the incident which took place on the 15th, May, outside the Manchester City ground.  The electrician Mr. Tapp, though shaken-up by the event, talked calmly for an hour to two local journalists from Northern Voices without bitterness or animosity about the events leading up to the car driving into him on a picket that had been called to challenge the companies involved in blacklisting:  BAM the company presently doing work on Manchester City's Etihad Stadium is alleged to have been affiliated to the now defunct Consulting Association, that was managed up until March 2009 in the Midlands by the notorious blacklist coordinator; the now late Ian Kerr.  After that, it was closed down following a raid by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), and Mr. Kerr was found guilty of operating an illegal data base (blacklist) containing the names of over 3,000 building workers; it was also later claimed by the ICO that Mr. Kerr had other files relating to other industries and professions. 

Last night, George Tapp complained from his hospital bed of sloppy reporting in some local newspapers, and expressed his concern at some of the reports in the press which seemed to imply that the workers and protesters had brought the suffering upon themselves.

Meanwhile Mr. Tapp told us that he much appreciated the support he had received from well-wishers, fellow trade unionists, and members of Salford Council.  He particularly mentioned Len McClusky, Jerry Hicks, Ian Stewart, the Mayor of Salford, and Alec McFadden, the North West representative of the TUC-JCC, who has an office at the Salford Unemployed Resource Centre.

Tomorrow, the Greater Manchester County Association of Trade Union Councils (TUCs) will be joining others in moving a composite motion at the National Conference of TUCs in London condemning blacklisting.  The composite motion states: 
'We express disgust that 44 construction companies, exposed as blacklisters by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) escaped without penalty.  Conference notes that the police and security services may have been complicit in the Consulting Association's activities and that blacklist records have also been kept on academics and journalists.'

The motion further states that:
'(i)  The regulations need to be strengthened and that it should be a criminal offence to supply, compile, solicit or use information in connection with a prohibited list;
(ii)  No public contracts should be awarded to any company that has used blacklisting unless they apologise for their action, pay appropriate compensation and where possible, provide employment.
(iii)  Any companies which use blacklisting or do not abide by national collective agreements and/or victimise union reps are not welcome in England and Wales.'

The motion asks Conference, among other things, to call upon the TUC to:
'Consider how to have full input into influencing the way that public procurement works in England and Wales to protect workers' rights... ' and to 'Support demands for a full investigation/ public inquiry into blacklisting, both past and present, and into the intimate involvement of both the police and security services in these iniquitous practices.' and to 'Draw up a list of local authorities that are awarding contracts to blacklisters like Carillion, and try to get them to award publicly funded contracts to companies that are not among the 44 firms that were affiliated to the Consulting Association.'  and to 'Demand that the ICO notifies all persons listed on the Consulting Association's blacklist files in the same way that victims were notified in the phone hacking scandal.'

Ashton-under-Lyne: Universal Credit

YESTERDAY saw a small demonstration at mid-day outside Ashton-under-Lyne Town Hall in Tameside, called by the PCS union against a pilot scheme which was just introduced to test the consequences of the Government's proposed new Universal credit to try to simplify a range of benefits into a single benefit:  the proposal is to combine JSA, ESA, IS, Housing Benefit and tax credits.  It is estimated that 8 million households will get this universal credit (UC).  Optimistically, the Government hopes this scheme will be implemented during the four years from 2013 to 2017.

The demo yesterday was sup[ported by Alec McFadden, the TUC-JCC representative for the North West and manager of Salford Unemployed Centre, supporters of Salford Against the Cuts, and delegates from Tameside Trade Council.  John Pearson and other members of the PCS union, Alec McFadden and Barry Woodling (Salford Against the Cuts and the Northern Anarchist Network[NAN]) addressed the gathering.

There are fears that this new benefit will lead to less benefits for claimants and to administrative problems within the benefit system.  Even the Government seems nervous as witnessed by the introduction of this small and cautious pilot in Ashton which only applies to a few postcodes in the tameside area.  Later some of the demonstrators led by delegates from Tameside TUC went to leaflet outside the local Job Centre, where many of the media had congregated.  There the press officer for the Dept. of Work & Pensions [DWP]/ Job Centre told Barry Woodling that the scheme was operating well so far.  Some leafleters were distributing a flyer criticising the 'Bedroom Tax'.

Ashton-under-Lyne and Tameside is an interesting as in the 1990s it was one of the areas that was foremost in challenging the Job Seeker's Allowance.

Conference on unemployment in Manchester

On Saturday I attended  a conference on 'Changing unemployment in Greater Manchester'  supported by GMATUC, Salford, Manchester , and Rochdale Trade Union Councils and union branches.    There was a long list of speakers and facilitators according to the blurb on the promotional leaflet.     The cast included Alec McFadden President Greater Manchester OFFA, Ron Marsden , Volunteer Salford  Unemployed Centre, Alex Halligan Unite the Union and Stephen Hall President Greater Manchester TUC.
Unfortunately the unemployed were manifestly uninterested.   The main hall at the Friends Meeting House was virtually empty for the morning plenary.   One workshop for youth and students had no takers.   The other 2 were poorly attended.   The conference was a resounding flop although the buffet lunch was excellent.