No Double Yellow Lines for Rochdale Blacklist Co.

AT LAST night's full council meeting of Rochdale MBC held in the Gothic revival Town Hall, Tory Councillor Pat Sullivan tabled a question about problems encountered by the contractor maintaining the highways in Rochdale.  Councillor Sullivan's quiery was:
'Recently contractors [Balfour Beatty] were putting yellow lines down and were unable to complete the job as two cars were parked.  Should the contractor not put notes out the night before in order to make sure that the work can be completed?'

Even Councillor Ashley Dearnley, Leader of Conservative Group and Shadow Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, got involved.  These construction companies are not always competent themselves, the building firm Carillion which has a partnership with Tameside MBC once claimed it couldn't repair the leaking roof of Ashton Library because it didn't have a long enough ladder at its disposal.

In March 2015, Rochdale Council took out a Highways Maintenance Contract with Balfour Beatty until 2020.

The works Balfour Beatty will do includes jobs for the repair and minor improvement work to the Council's highways infrastructure, including it seems double yellow lines.

What was not mentioned at last night's Council meeting was that the Rochdale Council has a contract with a firm labelled a blacklister by the Information Commissioner's Office [ICO].

The ICO website states:
'During 2008/09 the ICO carried out an investigation into employment blacklisting in the construction industry.  As part of that investigation, the ICO seized information from a company called The Consulting Association.  Some of the information we seized amounted to a 'blacklist' of individuals who were considered to pose a risk to their employers if employed within the construction industry.'

No doubt Labour Councillor Allen Brett, the newly crowned leader of Rochdale Council (not to mention his predecessor Richard Farnell) has forgotten what one of their earlier predecessor Colin Lambert said in 2013:  'Rochdale MBC wanted no truck with companies who blacklist workers and trade unionists'.

Ofcourse, it was Colin Lambert's friend, the deceased Labour MP, Jim Dobbin, who in 2012 sponsored the early day motion:
'That this House is aware of the campaign led principally by the trades unions, the GMB, UNITE, UCATT and others for justice for blacklisted workers, many of whose lives have been ruined by the secretive and malicious practice which has denied them employment in their industry without them having either the knowledge or privilege of being able to see or challenge information listed against them; believes such practices to be fundamentally wrong and against the very principles of freedom and democracy; and calls on the Government to condemn such behaviour and consider introducing new legislation to prohibit such practices.'

These days with Rochdale Council still under the control of Farmell's Labour Party cronies like Councillor Brett, companies such as Balfour Beatty with a history of blacklisting trade unionists are now on easy street being awarded fat public contracts by uncaring Labour councils like Rochdale MBC.

ICO: Information Commissioner's Office

Construction blacklist

Share Share this page (Opens share panel)

During 2008/09 the ICO carried out an investigation into employment blacklisting in the construction industry. As part of that investigation, the ICO seized information from a company called The Consulting Association. Some of the information we seized amounted to a 'blacklist' of individuals who were considered to pose a risk to their employers if employed within the construction industry.

How do I know if The Consulting Association held information about me?

Since 2009 we have been operating a fast-track service so individuals can telephone the ICO and find out whether their name is included within the information seized from The Consulting Association. You can telephone us and we will check the information held. If there might be information that relates to you we will ask you to provide proof of identity and then we will provide you with a copy of the information held. We have also been trying to proactively contact individuals who might have been affected by the activities of The Consulting Association.

I’ve received a letter from the ICO about the blacklist. What should I do next?

You can see the letter we sent out and a blacklist factsheet here. We ask that you contact us by post or email and provide some additional identifying information. We will then check the seized information and provide you with any information where we are satisfied that it relates to you.

Further Reading

• Construction industry letter and factsheet

  For the public
  PDF (55.56K)

In a few cases, there might not be enough information within the seized information to determine that it relates to a specific individual but if this is the case we will tell you.
You may want to use the template letter below:

[Your full address] [Phone number] [The date] Dear ICO, Subject access request [please insert your full name, date of birth and current address] Please supply the information about me I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 from the information seized by the ICO from The Consulting Association. I have included: • My National Insurance number • A copy of correspondence showing my name and current address • A copy of identification showing my name and date of birth (for example, a copy of my passport or driving licence) • List of my previous addresses If you need any more information from me, please let me know as soon as possible. Yours sincerely [your name]

Further Reading

• Construction industry subject access request template letter

  For the public
  Word (20.42K)

If all your identifying information is available electronically, you can email your letter and identifying information to us at accessicoinformation@ico.org.uk.
Or, post it to us at:
Information Access Team
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

I haven’t received a letter. What should I do to find out if I am on the database?

If you wish to check whether information about you is held on the database you can call our helpline on 0303 123 1113 between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. Give us your name and a contact telephone number and an ICO case officer will call you back. The officer will search the database. If no match is found, we will confirm this straight away.
If the details you provide are similar to, or seem likely to match those of someone on the database, we will ask you to provide us with further identification in writing. Once we have verified your identity and confirmed whether your details match those on the database, we will contact you to confirm if information is held about you and provide you with a copy of it.

Why is the ICO not writing to everyone?

In many cases the seized information is old and incomplete and there simply isn’t enough information for us to be able to confidently identify an individual. We are contacting as many people as we can.

What action has the ICO taken against construction companies?

The ICO issued enforcement notices against 14 construction companies based on the evidence recovered from The Consulting Association.
Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited
Balfour Beatty Construction Northern Ireland
Balfour Beatty Construction Scottish & Southern Limited
Balfour Beatty Engineering Services (HY) Limited
Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Limited
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Services Limited
C B & I UK Limited
Emcor Engineering Services Limited
Emcor Rail Limited
Kier Limited
N G Bailey Limited
Shepherd Engineering Services Limited
Sias Building Services Limited
Whessoe Oil & Gas Limited

What did the ICO do about The Consulting Association and the construction companies which used it?

The ICO prosecuted Ian Kerr, who ran The Consulting Association. He was fined £5,000 for a data protection offence and The Consulting Association ceased trading. The ICO also issued enforcement notices to 14 construction companies.

Could the ICO have issued a more substantial penalty?

It was disappointing to us that we could not issue more substantial penalties, but these were the maximum legal powers available to us at the time. We have since been given the power to issue civil monetary penalties up to £500,000, but these can only be issued where a breach of the Data Protection Act has taken place after April 2010.

 ICO: Information Commissioner's Office 

The UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

Could you have contacted people sooner?

The ICO’s focus since 2009 has been on helping those who feature on the list. To complement our helpline, we set up a fast-track service to allow anyone who suspected they were on the list to find out if they were, and get a copy of any information held about them.
Earlier this year, we wrote to 103 people in the cases where we had the individual’s address and were able to establish its accuracy with the help of Equifax.
In total, we’ve now taken over 4,000 calls from individuals wanting to know if their name was included on the blacklist, using the fast-track process. We have also received over 1,200 written requests, from which 467 individuals have been provided with copies of their information. That figure will continue to grow in the coming weeks, as we help more and more people.
We’ve also worked with construction trade unions to try to proactively reach more individuals whose information is included within The Consulting Association files. We provided details of individuals included on the list to the construction trade unions, which they cross-referenced with their membership lists.

I’ve heard there are other blacklists – what is the ICO doing about this?

The investigation into The Consulting Association did not find evidence of other blacklists. This is the only blacklist held by the ICO. However, if you think you have any evidence about the operation of a further blacklist then you can contact our casework team about this.

How do I find out more about the issue of blacklisting?

The Scottish Affairs Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into employment blacklisting and you can read more about this on their website.

Further Reading

Parliament.uk website

External link

'BENT UNION OFFICIALS'!

from Alan Wainwright's Blog

 Friday, 25 August 2017

IT is common knowledge to everyone involved in the blacklisting over the last twelve years that the current Unite area official, Mick Tuff and the then General Secretary, Derek Simpson buried all my blacklisting evidence in 2005/2006, leaving me (a current member of the Amicus union at the time) isolated and alone with this, and allowing Ian Kerr and The Consulting Association to continue functioning.
 

The evidence presented to them was the exact same evidence, no more or less than eventually enabled David Clancy from the ICO to trace and close down the Consulting Association some four years later.

I have raised this with many Unite officials over the years and many senior Labour politicians (funded by Unite), who have all turned a blind eye to this.  

On learning about Mr McCluskeys' election pledge (to hold an independent inquiry into trade union official complicity in the blacklisting),  I presented an extensive report to him on the evidence I’d collated on the cover up, trade union official collusion and other very important and relevant facts.  I put it to him that the scope of this inquiry needed to be widened much further than just officer collusion. 

The report can be downloaded here: REPORT

The appendices can be downloaded here: APPENDICES

Mr McCluskeys' email response dated 24 August 2017 simply states:  

“Please find enclosed a letter which has gone out to all of our construction NISC”.

"I am advised that you are not a member of Unite and this is just to advise that my dealings on this matter will be solely through the official organ of the union, i.e. the Construction NISC and the Executive Council”.

The letter referred to can be downloaded here: LETTER

My report had clearly stated that I am a member of Unite. It also detailed my membership and branch number at the top of the page. 

Mr McCluskeys’ comment therefore strongly suggests that he had not even read the report, let alone considered the very important facts contained.

alan wainwright & the construction industry blacklist - blogger

www.alanwainwright.blogspot.com 

http://www.unite4len.co.uk/len-mccluskey-vows-carry-fight-blacklisted-workers/

Building industry blacklist whistleblower sues for victimisation ...

https://www.theguardian.com › Business › Construction industry 

Union Bosses Who Blackballed Their Members!

 Why hasn't McCluskey probed bent officials before?

Why didn't Mrs. Cartmail interview Whistleblower Wainwright?

Why are blacklisted workers still waiting for justice?
by Brian Bamford
***

GUARDIAN journalist. Rob Evans last Monday wrote that  'blacklisted workers want an inquiry by a legal expert to interview trade union officials and victims, and see if information was handed over deliberately.'
Now Unite, the UK's biggest trade union, is facing calls to set up an inquiry into claims that union officials gave information to a clandestine blacklisting operation funded by major firms and enabling them to deny jobs to certain workers.
Long suspected details of the alleged complicity have emerged in documents prepared for a high court action following which construction firms apologised and paid compensation totalling around £75m to 771 blacklisted workers. The evidence of the complicity of trade union officials and managers has led to a group of 41 blacklisted workers to call on Unite to commission an independent inquiry into the claims.

  Why hasn't McCluskey probed bent officials before?

The election for the new Unite General Secretary closes on the 19th, April, and the existing general secretary Len McCluskey has said that he will  'set up an independent union inquiry to investigate all evidence made available' to him of collusion by union officers in blacklisting.  But Mr. McCluskey has been the general secretary of the Unite union for years, why has it taken so long for him to offer an inquiry?  Couldn't he have done this earlier?
Meanwhile, the Unite union's acting general secretary, Gail Cartmail has said: 'Only a full public inquiry with judicial authority will fully explain the depth to which the state and employers colluded to deny construction workers employment.'
'Unite has campaigned legally, industrially and politically to win justice for blacklisted workers and to ensure the disgusting practice of blacklisting is ended once and for all. Blacklisting is an industrial crime, the blame for which lays squarely at the door of the construction companies..'
Yet, Ms Cartmail herself conducted her own investigation in 2011 on behalf of the Unite union, and on the 2nd, November 2011, this Northern Voices Blog stated that her report 'cleared the union officer':
'THE Report and investigation into 'alleged Officer collusion in Blacklisting in the construction sector' conducted by an Assistant General Secretary of Unite, Gail Cartmail, has concluded that: 'Despite considerable effort I have not discovered evidence against officers' of the union. She writes that while 'I accept that this may disappoint some activists, who are justifiably angry and who have suffered ... great injustice arising from Blacklisting', she urges that 'workers officials of the union are also entitled to dignity at work and in the absence of any proof I trust that such allegation of collusion (in Blacklisting) will now desist.'
She was telling us to 'desist'  is asking questions about collusion in 2011, but now she's calling for a public enquiry because she knows the victims of blacklisting are still disgruntled and telling people to 'desist' is not politic.

In her report in 2011 Mrs. Cartmail wrote 'Alleged collusion by union officials' seems to place great stress on the allegations of one man Mr. James Simms, who was a former employee of a predecessor union and has since been employed by Beaver Management Services Ltd and has claimed to have a 'CD-ROM with the names of union officers on it complicit in the Blacklisting of members'.  She concluded that Mr. Simms that getting information from Mr. Simms was like extracting teeth.
But Jim Simms was not the most promising whistleblower with regard to the expose of the blacklist in the British building trade.  The credit there must surely go to the former electrician and whistleblower, Alan Wainwright, not Jim Simms?

 Why didn't Ms. Cartmail interview Whistleblower Wainwright?

THE whistleblower Alan Wainwright wrote a letter to Gail Cartmail, on Monday, the 23rd, July 2012 which he has placed on his own Blog: July - alan wainwright & the construction industry blacklist - blogger www.alanwainwright.blogspot.com/2012_07_01_archive.htm : 

:
Dear Mrs Cartmail

Re Construction Industry Blacklisting

'I was the whistleblower in this matter and provided the evidence which eventually exposed this via David Clancy at the ICO in March 2009. Three years on and we now appear to be making a start at holding the companies accountable for this, but I cannot help but feel that we could have saved at least three years if Mr Simpson had acted when he first came into possession of the evidence in 2005/2006.

'I'm therefore now writing to appeal to you to investigate Derek Simpsons' lack of enthusiasm to investigate and act upon this in 2005/2006 and provide the reasons behind this...

'I've held senior positions at Crown House Engineering (National Labour Manager), Drake & Scull and Haden Young and during those periods of employment the companies paid the union subscriptions of the members as part of a benefits package. The union also received two pounds per week for every agency worker placed on the sites as part of an 'agency workers membership scheme' set up by the Luton office under Harry Hughes. This was a simple head count system and payment made monthly if I recall correctly. I understand the unions received in excess of one million pounds a year from the companies in question under these schemes at the time.

'Although Mr Simpson has now retired, I do believe he receives a handsome pension and a luxury house to live in. I cannot see how this can be justified, as in my opinion he was in a prime position to do something about this and chose not to do so. Mr Clancy had no more or no less evidence than Mr Simpson three years previous but Mr Simpson chose to do nothing about this.'

Mr. Wainwright concluded his letter:
'As you may be aware, Guney Clark Ryan are about to lodge their case to the courts. We may never get full justice for these people, but I think they are at least owed some honesty about why a major union of which many were members did nothing to help them.'

Yours sincerely

Alan Wainwright

Mrs Cartmail in her reply wrote:

 '.... The purpose of your letter was specifically in relation to what you identify as a wasted opportunity on the part of the retired Amicus/Unite General Secretary Derek Simpson who you believe should have done more arising from your correspondence in 2005/2006.

'As you point out Mr Simpson is now retired. The union has no capacity to secure Mr Simpson's cooperation in an investigation. The union recently reviewed Mr Simpson's post retirement benefits, which were subsequently adjusted to the extent that this was possible.

'I empathise with your frustration however do assure you that Unite now gives priority to representing members known to be Blacklisted and is proactively working to achieve better law.'

Kind regards

Gail Cartmail

Readers must decide for themselves why Mrs. Cartmail didn't interview a vital witness such as Mr. Alan Wainwright when she was doing her investigation for the Unite union into blacklisting in 2011?

 Why are blacklisted workers still waiting for justice?

TO better understand Gail Cartmail's growing involvement within the campaign against the blacklist, we need to understand the development of the Blacklist Support Group, and how the Rank and File construction worker's campaign began to have political impact, prominence and profile.  At some point Mrs. Cartmail recognised this and decided to assimulate herself within the workings of the Blacklist Support Group.    

This can clearly be detected in her letter responding to Alan Wainwright in 2012:

Dear Alan

'Your effort and those now organised within the Blacklist Support Group has been tremendous in exposing the practice of Blacklisting in the Construction Industry.

'Since February 2011 I have led for the union as AGS for a number of sectors including construction. Over the past 12 months I have learned about different aspects of the ICO raid of the Consulting Association, subsequent litigation and legislative changes introduced by the Labour Government. In the process I have met and come to know many workers who have been the victim of Blacklisting in the industry.

'Both Unite's predecessor unions supported numerous members complaints to their employment tribunal where their application to the ICO showed they were on the Blacklist.  We have renewed encouragement to members to bring cases forward. Unfortunately as you probably know the settlements in respect of such cases is relatively low and poor comfort to workers who struggle to find employment commensurate with their qualifications.

'Over the past we have endeavoured to campaign against Blacklisting and work with the Blacklist Support Group on a number of fronts including legal challenges on grounds of disclosure of information and human rights...'

 A very sugary response indeed, and one intended to seduce!  

Yet the truth is that the conversion of the of the Unite leadership and that of the politicians within the Labour Party to the campaign against the blacklist for those of us who stood on the lonely picket lines in Manchester, was indeed a slow uphill  process.  It was only when the Blacklist Support Group became a political bandwagon following the raid by the Information Commissioner in 2009 of the offices of the Consulting Association run by Ian Kerr that things took off.

Alan Wainwright was clearly aware of this in his correspondence with Mrs. Cartmail in 2012:
'I note your comments about the current contribution from the union, but this is simply too little too late and is perceived by some I speak to as just jumping on the bandwagon. I put it to you again that these people are at the very least owed an explanation and an apology of why a major union of which many were members did nothing to help them at the time.'

Jumping on a political bandwagon is one thing Mrs. Cartmail, delivering justice is quite another!

Blacklisting: A story far from over

 By Gordon Anderson in 'Construction News'
3 April, 2017

THE story of blacklisting is a well-known one - and one that many thought was consigned to the past. But with the file reopened late last year, could there be more to come?
Many years since the initial revelations, the story of construction blacklisting far from over.
In December 2016, information commissioner Elizabeth Denham reopened the blacklisting file, starting a watching brief to monitor the on-going practices of the construction industry.
And in February this year, Labour MP Chuka Umunna called on Parliament to open a public inquiry into blacklisting practices in public construction projects, backed by Unite.
Construction companies would be wise to improve their systems to avoid a sequel to the 2009 story.

The blackstory

Blacklists were a secret database run by the Consulting Association that collected the names, religion, union membership, National Insurance numbers and other personal information on thousands of construction workers.
Over 16 years, the names of more than 3,000 individuals were put on this list without their knowledge.
Construction companies would run the names of potential employees against the list and, as a result, hundreds of workers lost their jobs and were unable to find work for years without knowing why.
The privacy of these individuals was gravely infringed, and often the information on the list was not even correct.

“In May 2016, several out-of-court settlements were reached by construction companies, who were estimated to have paid out £50m in compensation to 771 workers and £25m in legal fees”

In 2009, Ian Kerr, the man who ran the list, was prosecuted for failing to register as a data controller and 14 construction companies including Balfour Beatty and Kier were issued enforcement notices by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for violating the data protection principles that dictate that personal information must be used fairly.
Lawsuits followed in the civil courts where workers and unions demanded damages for the injustices they suffered.
In May 2016, several out-of-court settlements were reached by construction companies, who were estimated to have paid out £50m in compensation to 771 workers and £25m in legal fees.
The practice of blacklisting subjected thousands of workers to an unfair system of recruitment, leaving many individuals without work for years. And the companies involved in the practice not only suffered large settlement bills, but were publicly censured and suffered a blow to their reputation.

More to come?

In 2017, the story of blacklisting may seem to be on the backburner. But with the renewed call for a public inquiry and the ICO’s open file on blacklisting, there may be more to come.
If there were a second investigation into blacklisting, the ICO has greater powers this time around.
For conduct taking place after 6 April 2010, the ICO now has the ability to enforce higher fines of up to £500,000.
In 2009, the ICO was only able to prosecute the party running the list, but not the companies who used the list. This was widely criticised and it is likely that this limitation could be changed.
Construction companies should stay vigilant in preventing any form of blacklisting, starting with understanding the legislation.

“In 2009, the ICO was only able to prosecute the party running the list, but not the companies who used the list. This was widely criticised and it is likely that this limitation could be changed”

The Data Protection Act 1998 protects the personal information and data of individuals. Section 4 of the act outlines the data protection principles, and it is the responsibility of everyone – corporates and individuals alike – to follow them.
In summary, when using personal information one must ensure that it is used fairly and lawfully, that it is for a limited and specifically stated purpose, that the use is not excessive, it is accurate, and that it is kept safe and secure and for no longer than is necessary for the stated purpose.
If the ICO finds a contravention of these principles it has the power to issue an enforcement notice alerting that the identified conduct must cease. It is a criminal offence to fail to comply with the enforcement notice and offences are punishable by fine.

A helpful framework

To assist employers in staying within the data protection rules, the ICO published the Employment Practices Code in 2011.
Part 1 of the code outlines good practice when using personal data in the recruitment process. It states that an employer should only seek information that is relevant to the recruitment decision being made.
Where it is necessary to obtain documents or information about the worker from a third party, the employer should obtain consent from the worker.
If in the process of verifying or vetting an applicant the information produces discrepancies, the applicant should be given the opportunity to make representations. Where information is received that affects the individual’s privacy, they should be made aware of this.
These are some of the many practices that construction companies should follow.
While the Data Protection Act is the definitive law on the matter, the ICO’s code can provide a helpful framework.
Gordon Anderson is partner and head of the London construction team at Irwin Mitchell

Blacklisting: 'How far did this conspiracy go'?

THE BLACKLIST Support Group today announced that it intends to make a formal submission to the Metropolitan Police calling for an investigation into the destruction of documents and computer files by multinationals involved in the blacklisting scandal. 

High Court orders have resulted in retrieved computer records from construction firms only recently being disclosed to the lawyers of blacklisted workers. This previously hidden evidence indicates that computer hard drives were destroyed, email accounts were deleted and correspondence was shredded by companies appearing in the High Court litigation. 

Witness evidence and documents provided by Ian Kerr (chief executive of The Consulting Association) to a Select Committee investigation indicate that over 90% of the paperwork held by the blacklisting body was burnt on a bonfire and instructions were given to destroy other evidence. The destruction of the documents and computer files occurred at the same time as the ICO was carrying out an investigation, a criminal trial was taking place, hundreds of Employment Tribunal cases were still live, cases were submitted to the European Court of Human Rights and a High Court group litigation trial was being prepared. 

Now the newly disclosed evidence is available to blacklisted workers, it is felt that there is a strong case that the course of justice may have been deliberately perverted. A dossier is being compiled for legal opinion before considering pressing for the DPP to charge individuals involved with the Consulting Association and possibly the CEOs who sanctioned their illegal activity.  Perverting the course of justice is an indictable criminal offence without statute of limitations. If a person is found guilty of concealing evidence sentencing guidelines suggest a two year term of imprisonment.   

Dave Smith - the Blacklist Support Group secretary commented: 

'The pieces in the jigsaw are now coming together, albeit many are lost forever. The stench of corporate wrongdoing is no longer a moral issue but potentially a serious criminal offence. We will be doing everything in our power to make sure the police and the DPP take this matter seriously. The rich and powerful may think they are above the law but blacklisting will not be covered up like Saville was. Whatever the outcome in the High Court, our dossier will be handed into the police. If senior individuals gave orders or knowingly colluded in destroying documents that anyone could have predicted would undoubtedly have been used as evidence in numerous legal proceedings, they need to be held to account for their actions.' 

Howard Beckett Legal Director at Unite said: 

'The reason given by the defendants for poor disclosure is to openly admit to a corporate policy of ensuring the destruction of documents.  Their attempts to deny meaningful levels of compensation and to deny conspiracy allegations rely upon the lack of records.  Multiple legal cases became inevitable the very day that the Consulting Association was established, let alone the day it was raided.  People clearly felt their actions were unlawful, why else the secrecy and why else routinely destroy documents.  The Consulting Association was a secret conspiracy and Cullum McAlpine, a named defendant was at the core of it.  McAlpine is determined to avoid giving evidence at the High Court but for the sake of justice, he needs to now confirm he will appear to finally allow the victims of blacklisting to ask how far this conspiracy goes.'

Blacklist Support Group

book: http://newint.org/books/politics/blacklisted-secret-war/

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlCa8yQmZ70

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/blacklistSG/

Mystery of Computer Blacklist File

THE computer used by the illegal blacklisting organisation The Consulting Association (TCA) has dramatically been found after being 'lost' of more than 7 years. The PC was seized during the Information Commissioners' Office raid in 2009 but unbelievably the ICO returned the computer to Ian Kerr, chief executive of the blacklisting body without even turning it on to analyse it. The government department believed they had enough evidence for a conviction but their actions were subsequently roundly condemned by MPs during a Select Committee investigation into the systematic victimsation of union members in the construction industry.

According to Kerr, once the PC had been returned, it was destroyed along with all the data on it. But this has now turned out to be incorrect. During research for his book 'Blacklisted: the secret war between big business and union activists', investigative journalist Phil Chamberlain acquired the PC from the one time TCA book keeper Mary Kerr, who is set to be a witness in the imminent High Court blacklisting trial.

Phil Chamberlain commented: 

'The Consulting Association and the construction industry went to great lengths to keep their operation secret but we've gone to even greater lengths to gather evidence of their activities. It was only at the end of hours of interviews at her home that Mary Kerr mentioned a computer stored in her garage. I hadn't expected to be driving home with that in the boot of my car. Despite their best efforts, the secrets of the construction industry blacklist are being dragged into the light. Investigative journalism should and can change the public discourse but it often relies on persistence and lucky breaks.'

Apart from one letter chasing an unpaid invoice, all of the documents relating to the blacklisting operation have been deleted from the computer. The hard drive from the PC is now undergoing expert forensic computer examination to discover if previously deleted emails, word documents and spreadsheets can be recovered from hidden historical archives and ghost files. Any retrieved documents would then be used as evidence in the High Court. Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd, Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Costain, Skanska, Kier, Vinci and Laing O’Rourke are the defendants in the trial.

The rediscovery of the computer has the potential to blown apart the wall of secrecy surrounding the blacklisting conspiracy.  Despite numerous Court Orders, the blacklisting firms have repeatedly failed to disclose documents and in some cases the High Court has been told about evidence being deliberately destroyed. Not a single set of minutes from 16 years of TCA meetings have so far been disclosed. Not a single letter or email to or from Cullum McAlpine, the founding chairman of the blacklist conspiracy has been disclosed to the court. In a few days, the entire cover up may start to fall apart at the seams.

Howard Beckett, Legal Director at Unite the Union said: 

'These defendants openly admit to the destruction of documents. Their attempts to deny meaningful levels of compensation and to deny conspiracy allegations rely upon the lack of records. This discovery allows the victims legal teams to further explore the possibility that undisclosed documents still exist showing the true extent of those involved in the disgraceful practice of blacklisting.'

The hard drive also has the potential to shed further light on the involvement of the police in the human rights scandal. In 2008, Detective Chief Inspector Gordon Mills from the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU), one of the infamous and now disbanded police political surveillance units gave a PowerPoint presentation to senior managers and company directors at a TCA meeting in Oxfordshire. Ian Kerr claimed that a 'two way exchange of information' was established following the secret meeting. Both the police and the companies claim that no correspondence whatsoever relating to this meeting exists.   

Dave Smith, BSG secretary and core participant in the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing commented: 

'Its like Indiana Jones finding the Lost Ark. No one knows what secrets might be locked away inside but if you're one of the bad guys, you might want to keep your eyes closed.  Lots of people involved in the blacklisting conspiracy will be having sleepness nights worrying what is about to come out. My heart bleeds for them.' 

Next Blacklisting High Court hearing Thursday 7th April Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand

Photo-opportunity with blacklisted workers at: 9;15am

https://www.facebook.com/events/812975302136630/

'Blacklisted: the secret war between big business and union activists' has been shortlisted for the Bread & Roses Book Award . 

http://www.bread-and-roses.co.uk/ 

http://newint.org/books/politics/blacklisted-secret-war/ 

Blacklist Support Group: 

book: http://newint.org/books/politics/blacklisted-secret-war/

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlCa8yQmZ70

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/blacklistSG/

Kier Boss link to Consulting Association

Campaigners against construction industry blacklisting of trade unionists raising safety and other concerns on site have demonstrated outside the offices of a key firm involved in the practice.  The latest leg of GMB’s ‘crocodile tears’ tour arrived on 10 March at the Plymouth offices of construction giant Kier, whose former boss Danny O’Sullivan was involved in blacklisting and was identified over 100 times in a secret blacklister’s database.

 

Blacklisting came to light when in 2009 when the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) seized a Consulting Association database of 3,213 construction workers and environmental activists used by 44 companies to vet new recruits and keep out of employment trade union and health and safety activists.

 

Danny O’Sullivan was the main contact between Kier and the illegal blacklister. He went on to become chair of the Consulting Association from 2000 to 2001. The initials D.O’S – for Danny O’Sullivan - appear 103 times in the blacklist files. GMB said the protest was the second date in the second leg of its national protest tour 'to shame 63 construction industry managers named as blacklisters who have yet to come clean and apologise for their actions.'

 

The second leg of the tour visits Bristol, Plymouth, Epsom, Cambridge, Derby and Bridgend.

GMB news release. Morning Star.

Blacklisted Workers Strike Back!

ONE Monday morning in February 2009, four investigators from the Information Commissioner’s office knocked on a door in an alley in Droitwich, West Midlands. It was opened by 66-year-old Ian Kerr. David Clancy, head of investigations at the ICO, had spent months hunting for the Consulting Association, which had no nameplate above its green door and didn’t appear on official records. But this was the epicentre of a 30-year covert operation involving the country’s top construction firms and security services. Eventually the repercussions from this raid would be felt in boardrooms and parliaments around the world

For more go to http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/27/on-the-blacklist-building-firms-secret-information-on-workers

 

Blacklist Support Group

book: http://newint.org/books/politics/blacklisted-secret-war/

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlCa8yQmZ70

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/blacklistSG/

PCS Strike at ICO

Staff at the Information Commissioner’s Office are to hold a three day strike over pay

The strike on 26 and 27 February and 2 March follows a two day strike on 3 and 4 February which was solidly supported by around 95% of members and disrupted the ICO’s helpline, casework services and external speaking engagements. Around 20 PCS members staffed picket lines at the ICO’s main office in Wilmslow on both days.

PCS members are striking to demand fair pay for all staff after three senior executives were awarded average increases of 11%. Pay rates for the rest of staff remain significantly lower than those for equivalent jobs in the civil service and at other regulators, leading to problems with recruitment and retention.

ICO management are refusing to improve a pay offer and have instead taken the confrontational step of issuing individual letters to staff threatening that the offer may be withdrawn. A majority of staff have refused to agree the changes and are demanding ICO management return to negotiations to reach a collective agreement with PCS.

PCS members have been left with no option but to strike again. The strike will disrupt the ICO’s Data Protection Practitioner (DPP) conference in Manchester on 2 March, which will be attended by around 750 delegates. PCS will lobby delegates on the day of the conference to highlight the ICO’s low pay problem.

Branch secretary Paddy Dillon said: “PCS members at the ICO are determined to demand fair pay for all staff, not just the most highly paid executives. They have made it absolutely clear that they want ICO management to reach a collective agreement with their union rather than take the divisive step of issuing individual letters.”
Messages of support can be sent to icobranchpcs@gmail.com
Not a PCS member? Join today for protection at work.

ICO in "Contempt of Court" over blacklisting!

We are publishing below the latest briefing from the Blacklist Support Group (BSG). It is of interest to note that according to BSG, around 100 public bodies have now decided that contracts should not be awarded to blacklisting companies. Tameside Labour controlled council, in Greater Manchester, is not on this list and continues to outsource jobs and services to Carillion, a company that is currently facing legal action by workers in the High Court for alleged activites involving the blacklisting of trade unionists in the building trade.

 

1. Chuka Umunna pledges an inquiry into blacklisting in speech to the TUC Congress in Liverpool:

"I'm proud to say we will do what this Government has refused to: launch a full enquiry, held publically, into the inexcusable blacklisting of workers in the construction sector. Let me be clear. If am given the privilege of serving as Business Secretary in the next Labour Government we will deliver justice to those workers who lost their livelihoods and end blacklisting for once and for all."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/chuka-umunnas-speech-tuc-full-text

BSG applaud Labour's pledge for a full enquiry for blacklisted workers.

Every stone needs to be turned to expose the full sordid details of this human rights conspiracy. bsg will continue to push for a full public inquiry to hear evidence from those who have been affected by the national scandal plus the directors of multinational construction firms and undercover police officers.

 

2. ICO in "Contempt of Court" over blacklisting.

GMB union has started enforcement proceedings accusing the ICO of being in contempt of court over their apparent favouring of the employers compensation scheme while still refusing to provide similar information to the trade unions.

www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/ico-in-contempt-of-court-on-blacklisting

3. Compensation scheme deadlines.

 

There are some deadlines that have been imposed by the firms blacklisting compensation scheme. BSG are not legally qualified to give advice, so we encourage any potential claimants to contact their trade union; UNITE, UCATT, GMB or RMT or Guney, Clark & Ryan solicitors. But if you have a Consulting Association blacklist file and are still considering whether to join the High Court claim or accept the pitiful offer from the firms, please email on return and we will give you some pointers

4. No public contracts for blacklisters

 

Around 100 public bodies have passed motions stating that no public contracts should be awarded to firms involved in blacklisting. Islington Council recently threw Kier off of the £16.5m a year Housing repairs contract because of the firm's involvement with the Consulting Association blacklist. Its a pity some of the other public bodies who have passed symbolic resolutions are are not prepared to take a similar stand.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/concerns-over-blacklisting-4168957

http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/kick-bam-out-of-dundee-over-blacklisting

 

5. Blacklist Support Group - established 2009

 

Blacklist Support Group is the justice campaign and support network for anyone caught up in UK construction industry blacklisting scandal. Trade unionists, safety campaigners, journalists, academics and environmental activists were all blacklisted by big business. Multinational building contractors have for decades compiled a secret database of union members in the UK construction industry. It was finally exposed in 2009 after a raid on the offices of the Consulting Association that operated the blacklist on behalf of the major companies. Union members were denied work over many years because they had been stewards or safety reps on previous building projects. Raising concerns about asbestos, poor toilet facilities or unpaid wages could result in a union member being added to this blacklist. Evidence has come out over the past five years that proves beyond any doubt that the police and the security services were involved in the blacklisting.
Blacklist Support Group have demanded since 2009:

• A full public inquiry by the UK government
• A public apology from the firms
• A compensation fund
• Jobs for blacklisted workers on major projects
• NO public contracts for proven blacklisting companies
• Criminal charges against the human rights abusers

We have fought them in the courts, in parliament plus civil disobedience and industrial action on building sites. Blacklisted workers are still waiting for justice.

 

Blacklist Support Group

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlCa8yQmZ70

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/blacklistSG/

Did Unite legal team contact Information Commissioner's Office?

RECENTLY, sources close to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) suggest that people claiming to be from the Unite union legal team have asked that the ICO only present 'semi-unredacted files', when the Information Commissioner appears before the Employment Tribunal. It must be emphasised that this has not yet been confirmed, but, if true, it would mean that any reference to the names of union officers in the files found at the officers of the 'blacklister', Ian Kerr, would be blacked out.

If true, then the legal reasoning may be that as the cases of the union members are directed against the companies alleged to have been paying Mr Kerr, operating the blacklist and perpetuating victimisation's, then any reference in the files to the involvement of the union or its officers would not be relevant to the proceedings. This can only be true in the narrowest sense, because some of the evidence seems to show, as in the DAF case, that the presence of a union official at management deliberations about the suitability of employees lent an air of respectability to what was happening and thus a sub-contractor, like the managers of DAF, could be influenced to act against their better judgement.