Leaked ledgers confirm Carillion’s blacklisting

                                     sent to NV by Joe Bailey (Unite) 
FAILED construction giant Carillion was a major supporter of an illegal blacklisting outfit that targeted safety activists and trade union reps, leaked documents have confirmed.  The firm has been linked to blacklisting for years, with the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in 2013 publishing evidence about how Carillion liaised with the blacklisting agency, the Consulting Association, either directly or via its subsidiaries.  Six managers directly involved with the association were named in the document.  Subsequently, the GMB union estimated that from October 1999 to April 2004 Carillion checked at least 14,724 names against files illegally held by the covert blacklister. Invoices and sales book records, seized by the Information Commissioner’s Office during a raid in 2009, showed that Carillion paid £37,814.72 to the Consulting Association between 1999 and 2006.  This month the Canary obtained the Consulting Association’s entire set of ledgers, which confirmed Carillion’s routine payments for data from the Consulting Association files. Dave Smith, joint secretary of the Blacklist Support Group, said: “Carillion blacklisted me after I raised concerns about safety on their building sites; it ended up in the European Court of Human Rights. At the very same time the company were milking public sector contracts including in the NHS. Not another penny of taxpayers’ money should be given to these wretches. 
In May 2015, Carillion, together with several other construction companies, agreed on a payout of around £80m in compensation to almost 800 blacklisted workers.

Ÿ  The Canary. The Metro.

******

Instirute of Employment Rights for blacklist inquiry

14 December 2017:
A new report published by independent think tank the Institute of Employment Rights recommends a public inquiry is conducted into the blacklisting scandal, and sets out a 'Manifesto Against Blacklisting', proposing changes to the law, including criminal sanctions for employers operating blacklists.
It has been eight years since the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) raid of blacklist operation The Consulting Association found evidence that thousands of workers had been locked out of employment in the construction industry for such reasons as highlighting dangerous working practices or being a member of a trade union.
Despite continued legal action, justice has not yet been served, with Unite the Union now seeking compensation for 70 further workers who did not benefit from previous out-of-court settlements, and new evidence of continued blacklisting in the construction industry being debated in parliament.
In the latest IER publication – Blacklisting: The need for a public inquiry – Secretary of the Blacklist Support Group, Dave Smith, maps out the barriers to justice experienced by workers, both in terms of accessing the tribunal system and in securing a guilty verdict for their former employers. He emphasises that what the thousands of victims of blacklisting want the most is for the individuals responsible for their plight to be publically held to account.
"It's been an ongoing fight for decades and the end still seems distant," Dave Smith, Secretary of the Blacklist Support Group and co-author of the report, said. "Before the 2009 ICO raid that finally proved us right, we were labelled conspiracy theorists, and even after we had the evidence it was an uphill struggle to be heard in court.
"Even for those who eventually received compensation, money alone is not justice.  Blacklisted workers spent years of their lives struggling to make ends meet, with many reporting to me that the strain stretched beyond finances, to their families and relationships, their mental health, their social lives."
What blacklisted workers most want to see is the individuals responsible for their suffering to be held to account.  We want a full public inquiry to investigate the truth behind what happened, and we want a change in the law to prevent other workers from going through what we have."
The publication concludes with a Manifesto Against Blacklisting drafted by employment law expert Alex Just, who makes several recommendations for changes in the law. Key recommendations include:

• Criminal sanctions for employers that illegally blacklist workers, including personal criminal liability for staff who knowingly blacklist
• A 10-year ban on holding a directorship for any person found guilty of blacklisting
• A ban from public contracts for firms that illegally blacklist workers
• Compulsory training for HR directors and staff on the law around blacklisting
• Stronger powers for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to investigate cases of suspected blacklisting
• The establishment of a new UK Data Court to consider civil and criminal charges jointly so that judges are able to hear all of the evidence pertaining to a case
  

"It is clear that the law as it stands is not robust enough to protect workers or to bring those operating illegal blacklists to account. Not only is there still a requirement for further legal action eight years on, but the employers involved continue to make billions in profit from public contracts having been able to evade being found officially 'guilty' of acts they have publically admitted to," employment law expert and co-author of the report, Alex Just, explains.
"A thorough examination of the obstacles faced by blacklisted workers over the last eight years has revealed several key factors that we recommend are reviewed and changed in order to prevent another years-long scandal being dragged through the courts in the future. The law must provide justice to those workers who have lost years of their lives, and it must act as a deterrent to the secret continuation of blacklisting by holding those responsible to account."
 Ÿ  IER news release

******

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.

European Court: Defeat for Worker's Rights

FOLLOWING a decision in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg released this week, campaigners are challenging politicians to provide legal protection to agency workers. The ruling in the case of Smith v. the United Kingdom (Application Number 54357/15) was handed down by ECHR President, Kristina Pardalos, relates to Dave Smith, an engineer from Maldon in Essex, who was one of thousands of construction workers who appeared on the notorious Consulting Association blacklist operated on behalf of the UK's major building contractors.  Smith was blacklisted after he being elected as a safety representative for the construction UCATT (now part of UNITE).

His Employment Tribunal against various companies in the Carillon Group became a test-case for blacklisted workers but the Strasbourg decision has implications far beyond just the construction industry.  At the original Employment Tribunal, the company admitted that their senior managers had provided information to the blacklist because Smith was a union member who had raised concerns about safety issues on their projects.  But the ET found against Smith because as an agency worker he was not covered by UK employment law.  Millions of agency workers are currently excluded from basic employment rights such as unfair dismissal, redundancy and protection from victimization for raising safety issues.    

Smith's legal team appealed the case all the way to the Court of Appeal before it was finally rejected at the Supreme Court.  A submission was made to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the Consulting Association blacklist conspiracy was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are supposed to apply to everyone not just direct employees.  

Paragraph 36 of the ECHR judgement reads: 

"At the outset, the Court considers that in light of the criminal proceedings pursued against the Chief Officer of the Consulting Association by the Information Commissioner for failing to register as a data controller under the Data Protection Act and the admissions made by the defendant companies in the High Court proceedings, it is clear that the retention of personal data by the CA interfered with the applicant’s Article 8 rights". 

However, because of the campaign led by the Blacklist Support Group alongside the UNITE and GMB trade unions, which resulted in a Select Committee investigation and a multi-million pound settlement in High Court litigation, the ECHR ruled that Smith's case had been 'duly considered' by the British legal system and was therefore declared 'inadmissible'. 

While Smith was paid compensation during the High Court settlement, the ECHR ruling leaves the issue of the second class treatment of agency workers by UK employment law completely unresolved.  If even a blacklisted worker whose human rights have been infringed cannot win legal redress in either the UK Employment Tribunal system or the highest court in Europe, what chance do care workers, teachers or nurses engaged via employment agencies stand?  The current differential treatment of agency workers amounts to a EU sized loophole by which unscrupulous bosses can exploit agency workers with absolute impunity.  

John Hendy QC represented Smith in his test-case and commented on the ECHR decision:

"The use of agency workers and false self employment now deprive several million workers from full employment rights. The use of employment tribunal fees defeats the rights of those workers who do have them. As Dave Smith's case shows these problems cannot be left to the courts: they require urgent and fundamental legislation. The election provides the opportunity to vote on this issue".

After receiving the decision, Dave Smith commented:

"This ECHR decision is a green light to bad employers.  If UK and EU judges either can't or won't protect agency workers. I challenge all political parties in the General Election to commit themselves to extending full employment rights to the millions of workers engaged via employment agencies. In an era of zero hours contracts and casualisation, this is a defining issue for any politician claiming to stand up for workers rights". 

Gail Cartmail, UNITE Assistant General Secretary stated: 

“As this disappointing decision is being digested we know the paucity of legal protection from blacklisting means that third parties are instructing “do not engage” or if an activist slips through the net, dismiss.  Tomorrow is International Worker’s Memorial Day when we will mark 43 construction workers death from April 2015 to April 2016. In the past and today major players in construction have singled out trade union activists for raising legitimate safety concerns.  We need a full Public Inquiry and it is good to know this is a Labour pledge.  Remember the dead and fight for the living.”

UNITE member, Terry Brough, was the only other blacklisted worker to have a case submitted to the ECHR.  His case was ruled 'inadmissible' in September 2016. Brough commented:

"I extend my solidarity, respect and best wishes to Dave and his team in this, his latest involvement in the fight for justice. Blacklisted workers have not achieved justice through the courts: Corbyn should pledge a full public inquiry on the blacklisting scandal".  

Blacklist Support Group

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

Loneliness of the Longdistance Whistleblower!

by Brian Bamford

Derek Pattison - Joint Editor wrote on 9th, March 2017:

'I feel compelled to comment. There is no doubt that Mr. Wainwright's help in exposing this blacklisting scandal, was absolutely invaluable to many building workers.  This was because he was a 'blacklister' turned 'whistleblower' and had valuable inside information.  However, when he gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, he was asked at what point he realised that there was something reprehensible or immoral about blacklisting construction workers.
'Many people (including those on the Scottish Affairs Select Ccommittee) felt that he did not act as he did, because his conscious pricked him, but because he had been shit on by the company he worked for when he raised the issue of alleged corrupt practices and they took detrimental action against him. Some people feel that he really blew the whistle because he was a disgruntled employee who wanted to get back at the company that he worked for.
'There is nothing surprising about this and people often do blow the whistle for similar and not unrelated reasons, rather than acting in the public interest.
'Mr Wainwright refers to his meeting with Ian Kerr.  As I understand it, Kerr said in his evidence to the SASC, that Mr. Wainwright had said that Tarmac (the company he worked for, now Carillion) did not need his services because they had their own information about construction workers and could operate their own blacklist.
'Understandably, Mr Wainwright will now want to minimise his involvement in this scandalous practice of blacklisting, and engage in ex-post facto rationalisations.  No doubt, Alan will be happy to expand on these matters and answer questions about this, when he meets trades unionist to talk about his role in the blacklisting of construction workers.'

Derek Pattison, the joint-editor of Northern Voices, wrote the comment above earlier this month in response to an appeal from the whistle-blower and former costruction industry boss, Alan Wainwright in a legal case against Balfour Beatty.  Derek, in his account below, was clearly anxious to show that there is much that is complicated in the affairs of men and women:  the line between morality and expediency may well be a fine one.  It is now worth reminding ourselves by re-reading what the journalist Rob Evans had to say in The Guardian on Friday the 15th, May 2009:

Alan Wainwright: The lonely life of a construction industry whistleblower 

by Rob Evans Friday 15 May 2009 01.00 BST

Blacklist whistleblower, Alan Wainwright. Photograph: Christopher Thomond 

How former manager exposed how workers were being secretly blacklisted. 

ALAN WAINWRIGHT is a whistleblower who appears to have had a significant hand in changing government policy. The one-time construction manager used his inside knowledge to expose the clandestine use by companies of blacklisting that has prevented trade unionists and alleged "troublemakers" getting jobs.

By going public, he set off a chain of events which resulted, on Monday, in an announcement from the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, that the government was finally going to outlaw covert blacklists. Mandelson had been forced to act after a watchdog closed down a private investigator allegedly at the heart of blacklisting in the construction industry. Wainwright played a key role in helping to unmask the investigator, who is due to be prosecuted for breaking the data protection act on 27 May. This week he is pleased, but keen to stress that others, including trade unionists and politicians, deserve the credit as well.
He has trodden the familiar path of a whistleblower – battling for a long time in obscurity while being ignored by those in power: "It was demoralising not to be believed." Like other whistleblowers, he suffered for going public – losing his job, having no income, using up all his savings to live, experiencing a lot of stress, and fearing he would be evicted from his home: "It affects your relationship with your children, who are the most important thing in my life."

Industrial strife

Wainwright, 45, grew up in Deeside, north Wales. He started off as an electrician then ran a recruitment agency before being recruited by the Tarmac construction firm.
His whistleblowing story starts in 1997 when he was the national labour manager at an engineering company, Crown House (then a Tarmac subsidiary). He had been told by a senior manager that construction companies paid a private investigator, Ian Kerr, for information to "ensure that certain workers did not gain employment on their projects". He was told to meet Kerr because the vetting was being extended to Crown House's labour force.

"He [Kerr] definitely made it clear that they were undesirable people who had a history of causing disruption to projects," Wainwright says.
He had two meetings with Kerr, who said that many construction firms supplied him with details of workers on his database. As an example, Wainwright was shown a list of more than 100 names. According to Wainwright, Kerr said that when someone applied for a job, the company would forward their name to him so he could check his database. Wainwright said that if a worker was rejected, a simple "no" would come back, with no other explanation.
Wainwright's department faxed a weekly list of names to Kerr; later the lists went to Tarmac's head office: "It was very discreet, a closely guarded secret. It was made clear to me that I was not to discuss it with anybody, and I didn't." However, something was stirring in his mind: "I knew deep down that there was something wrong with it."
Yesterday, Laing O'Rourke, which now owns Crown House, said that in recent years it had bought companies which had paid Kerr, but this had been stopped.  In 2000, Wainwright briefly worked for the Drake and Scull construction firm. He said his managers sent him a list of 500 workers, with their national insurance numbers, which it had received from rival construction firm Balfour Beatty.  He said the listed workers had been employed on three large construction projects that had seen a lot of industrial strife, and that the list was distributed to managers to ensure some workers were not employed.  The memo, dated August 2000, advised him to "keep this information confidential".
The Emcor construction company, which owns Drake and Scull, said it was aware of the list described by Wainwright: "We have employed individuals named on that list, at the time and subsequently. We do not condone blacklists."
By 2004, Wainwright was a manager for Haden Young, a subsidiary of Balfour Beatty. Within a year, he came across what he thought was fraud by employees, but says his bosses were not interested in finding out the truth – a claim they deny. "The management shunned me," he says. "It got to the point where I felt very isolated, alone and alienated. It was one of the most distressing periods of my life."  He initiated a grievance complaint against the company, but began to worry that he himself would be branded a troublemaker.

In a letter to his head office in July 2005, he wrote: "The company operates a blacklisting procedure for new recruits and hired temporary agency workers to check for any previous history of union militancy, troublemaking."
Copies of Haden Young faxes from the time show lists of names being faxed to head office so that, he believes, they could be vetted.
Yesterday Balfour Beatty said it did "not condone the use of 'blacklists' in any circumstances and has taken steps to ensure that none of our companies use such services."  In 2006, Wainwright quit Haden Young but lost an employment tribunal claim. He was by then convinced that he had been blacklisted as he had applied unsuccessfully for more than 150 jobs.  He believed he had to make a concerted effort to expose the blacklisting if he were ever going to get work. He set up a website and posted names of hundreds of workers he believed had been blacklisted to alert them.

Unfair dismissal

He linked up with workers who thought they were being blacklisted, shared his inside information with them and gave evidence for them in industrial tribunals.  Three workers won their case in 2007 for unfair dismissal when a tribunal concluded that a "disgraceful" blacklist did exist in the construction industry.  A Guardian article on the cases last June caught the attention of the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, the official privacy watchdog.  He investigated because he was worried that workers were unfairly being denied jobs.  As Wainwright had met Kerr and still had documents concerning the alleged blacklisting, he was able to help him.  Investigators raided Haden Young premises and tracked down the elusive Kerr to a nondescript office in Droitwich, Worcestershire. In February, they raided Kerr's premises and seized a secret database of 3,200 workers, effectively finishing the 66-year-old's business.
Thomas then named 40 construction firms including Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert McAlpine, Laing O'Rourke, Emcor and Crown House, which he said had been clandestinely using the database to vet potential workers. According to Thomas, the firms bought details of the individuals' trade union activities and work record from Kerr. Workers were said to be labelled, for example, as "Communist party", "lazy and a trouble-stirrer", "Do not touch" and "Irish ex-army bad egg".  Among the entries was one on Wainwright recording how he had helped blacklisted workers.
Now the jovial Wainwright is happily out of the construction industry and working for a concert ticket business.
He is animated about who are the ultimate culprits –  the directors of the construction companies. "Ian Kerr is not the primary cause of this.  The companies set him up in business, funded his existence from the start, and each name on the list would have been provided by the companies.  The directors took the decisions to join the system."

He is not ready to celebrate the end of blacklisting yet as he is waiting to see if Mandelson manages to draw up a proper law to eradicate it. "I am cautiously optimistic, however," he says.
Alan Wainwright's new blog on the construction industry blacklist is now live

Alan Wainwright: the CV

Born Chester 1963.
Career 1979-1989, qualified electrician; 1989-1993, managing director of own recruitment business; 1993-2000, national labour manager, Crown House; 2000, business improvement director at Emcor Drake & Scull; 2001-2004, human resources consultancy work; 2004-2005, production manager, Haden Young; 2006-present, concert ticket buyer, after 200 unsuccessful job applications.
Family Divorced, son 21 and daughter 19.
Interests Writing, performing and watching live music.

Blacklist Company & Rochdale MBC

LAST night, there were two demonstrations outside Rochdale Town Hall for the full council meeting.  One was an ongoing protest by citizens and council workers again the Labour and Tory councillors who at the last full council meeting awarded themselves a rise in stipend of 34%, but the other was a challenge by residents who are anxious about the Northern Economic Gateway which proposes to build posh houses on the Green Belt in Rochdale and other areas of Greater Manchester.

The Rochdale Council leader, Richard Farnell, did his best to justify the rise in the councillor's stipend of which he is the chief beneficiary*.  What was more interesting last night was the debate about the Green Belt, which resulted in cat-calls from the packed public gallery.

Councillor Farnell promised a full consultation which the public over the next 20-years in which the project will be rolled out.  He also predicted a vision of an economic utopia for the people of Rochdale and beyond when the project goes ahead.

A Tory councillor suggested that only Brown Field land should be used in the first place and that areas of Green Belt should only be used if and when necessary.  But the Tory councillor then said that obcourse the building firm 'Balfour (Beatty) will not agree to this!'.

This was stating the obvious, because the contrators want the cream first and foremost , and the Green Belt offers the most profitable land for development.

Yet, Balfour Beatty is no ordinary company it was one of the prime movers of the Blacklist in the British building industry and was an affiliate of the Consulting Association operated on its behalf by the now deceased blacklister Ian Kerr, before it was closed down by the Information Commissioner in 2009 it damaged many lives of working men.

If Rochdale Council, a Labour Council, is now going to get into bed with a gang of blacklisters who have inflicted tremendous suffering on workers in the British building trade this is to say the least very disappointing.

What happened to an 'Ethical Procurement Policy' at Rochdale MBC?  Or indeed in Greater Manchester?

At least Councillor Richard Farnell's predecessor former Councillor Colin Lambert  when leader of Rochdale MBC said that his council would avoid employing companies like Balfour Beatty that participate in the blacklisting of trade unionists.

For coverage of the previous Rochdale meeting of Rochdale MBC filmed by Carl Faulkner, and how the Rochdale councillor's voted through their 34% rise in the councillor's stipend go to  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c2pmv_lZFI

Ruined Lives: UCATT report on blacklisting. | UCATT

https://www.ucatt.org.uk › Campaigns › Blacklisting

ALAN WAINWRIGHT & THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY BLACKLIST

www.alanwainwright.blogspot.com/ 

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.