Below is a campaign statement that has been sent to Northern Voices
by the Campaign to defend Alec McFadden. Though we have made some
investigations about this problem, Northern Voices does not have enough
information to justify us taking sides at this stage. In the light of this it has
been decided to publish the statement below in full without comment, which
was sent to us by Liz Epps on behalf of the campaign to defend Alec McFadden.
ALEC McFadden, a stalwart of the trade union movement for
over 50 years, has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice which is having
terrible repercussions. He needs your support. Alec is known and respected
throughout the country for his work as a union organiser, and for his role
since 1996 in running the Salford Unemployed and Community Resource Centre
which has provided help and assistance to thousands of people. He is a
committed campaigner against sexism, racism, fascism and opposition to benefits
sanctions. He suffered a serious facial wound when a fascist attacked him with
a knife at his home on the Wirral.
Alec organised a very successful Anti- Austerity March in
October 2015. At the end of the protest, on 3rd October 2015, the marchers had
a meal at Smith’s restaurant in Eccles, Salford where Alec was the compere for
the evening with a number of speakers including Rebecca Long Bailey MP for
Salford, Steve North Unison branch secretary and the then Mayor of Salford Ian
Stewart. Also present were other local councillors and the press. Five weeks
later Alec was informed by Unite (13 November) that it ‘had received a formal
complaint from one of our members about your actions during the March against
Austerity from Thursday 1st October to Sunday 4th October.’ It was alleged he
had breached Unite’s Dignity and Harassment Policy. No further details were
divulged. Two weeks later Alec had received a further letter from Unite (25
November) which told him no more than the identity of the complainant and that
she had made a complaint which ‘relates to alleged incidents which took place
between 1st and 4th October 2015 towards another Unite member’.
Investigation
Unknown to Alec, witness statements were made by the
complainant and two supportive witnesses. On 6 January 2016he complainant and
one witness were interviewed by a Unite Investigation panel on 6 January 2016,
again without the knowledge of Alec. So Alec had no opportunity to challenge
them, nor was the panel able to put any response from Alec to the witnesses,
since the panel had not disclosed the witness statements or even the nature of
the allegation to Alec. It had certainly not asked him for his side of the
story.
Alec was then called to attend before the Investigation
Panel on 22nd January. By then all Alec knew was what was in the two letters he
had received. He had no idea what was alleged against him. The Investigation
Panel chose not to share with him the statements it had obtained from the
complainant and her witness or the notes made of their interviews by the panel.
So Alec had no idea of the case against him and no chance to prepare a defence.
When the interview with Alec commenced he was still in complete ignorance of
the date, time, place and nature of the alleged ‘incidents’. It was not until
half way through the interview that he was shocked to be told that he was
alleged to have slapped the complainant on the bottom at the dinner in the
middle of the restaurant. He was not told that the complainant’s witness had
added ‘the lights were quite bright and we were very visible to our fellow
marchers and other guests’. Alec denied the allegation. The panel asked no
further questions about it. Neither the complainant nor her witnesses were
present when Alec was interviewed, and since he had not been provided with
their witness statements or notes of the interview, he had no opportunity to
point out inconsistencies or contradictions in their evidence. Nevertheless,
the investigation panel found that there was a case for him to answer.
Disciplinary
Next Alec was called to a formal Unite disciplinary hearing
on 15th April 2016. Before hearing Alec’s defence or his witnesses, he was
startled to be told by the Chair of the Disciplinary Panel: ‘From what has been
presented to us, in all probability, some misconduct has taken place.’ This
conclusion was based on solely on their reading of the report of the
Investigation Panel.
The Disciplinary Panel refused a request that the
complainant and her witnesses should attend and give evidence to the Panel because
it would be ‘inappropriate.’ So Alec and his representative were denied the
chance to question them, put his case to them or explore the serious
inconsistencies in their account of the alleged incident. Likewise, the Panel
denied itself the opportunity to hear the complainant and her witness in person
so as to weigh up the credibility of their account. Even Alec’s offer that the
complainant be questioned without Alec being present was refused.
Perhaps, not surprisingly, the Disciplinary Panel reached the
same conclusion at the end of the hearing that it had before the case began:
‘that in all probability, Mr McFadden did commit the offence of slapping [the
complainant] on the bottom.’ The conclusion was expressed to be based solely on
the evidence of the Complainant’s witness, since it said that to disbelieve her
statement ‘would be tantamount to an accusation of lying.’ How the Panel could
determine whether she was lying or not without hearing and seeing her give her
evidence and being questioned about it was not explained. Nor was it explained
on what basis the Panel were able to disregard the evidence of Alec and his
witnesses (that they had neither seen anything untoward nor heard anyone speak
of such a thing during the course of a long evening during which both Alec and
the Complainant were present, at one stage sitting next to each other.) The
Disciplinary Panel decided that Alec must be banned from office in Unite and
attend Unite’s Dignity and Respect Training Course.
Appeal
Alec appealed to an Appeal Panel of Unite’s EC. Again Alec’s
rep asked that the complainant and her witness attend, give their evidence
orally and be subject to questions from him and the Panel. He emphasised that
inconsistent and contradictory evidence of the Complainant and her witnesses
should be subject to at least some questioning and scrutiny as no such
questioning or scrutiny had occurred at the Investigation or Disciplinary
stages. This request was dismissed out of hand and the Panel refused to hear
for themselves the evidence against Alec or allow it to be questioned.
Alec provided the panel with even more witness statements of
those present in the restaurant including the MP and even the Restaurant
manager and staff, all of whom clearly stated they saw or heard nothing of the
alleged incident which according to the complainant took place in view of
everyone.
Particularly significant was that Alec’s rep also sought to
introduce the evidence of a Mr S who had, in August 2016, been told by the
complainant that she had not been assaulted by Alec and that she had been
pressurised into making the complaint. The Appeal Panel refused to entertain
this evidence on the ground that ‘it was an unsubstantiated account of an
alleged conversation with the complainant that had been compellingly and
comprehensively rebutted by her.’ This appears to be false. There was no
evidence that Mr S’s account had ever been put to the complainant - let alone
that she rebutted it. As noted, Alec’s request for her attendance had been
refused. It was not suggested that she had made a further, undisclosed
statement rebutting Mr S – such a statement would surely have been produced had
it been made.
The Appeal Panel’s refusal to entertain this crucial
exonerating piece of defence evidence can only have been because it
fundamentally undermined the prosecution case. That is a travesty of justice.
In the light of that it was no surprise that the Appeal
panel upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Panel. When his rep asked how
long Alec would be suspended from Office he was told it was for at least 5
years! That is until Alec is 75.
Breach of Confidentiality + Media Smears
If that were not bad enough, what followed will shock and
concern every trade union activist. Confidential details of the case, including
a statement by the complainant were leaked to the media. This could have only
come from someone within Unite. The angle the media took was to attack Alec and
link him to Jeremy Corbyn so as to undermine him. Alec had been one of Corbyn’s
biggest supporters and articles in the Telegraph, Times, Liverpool Echo and
Guardian were spun to try to damage Corbyn and denigrate Alec.
The TUC
In September 2016, the TUC informed Alec that in addition to
the sanctions imposed by Unite, the TUC also banned him from holding his
elected position representative to and as chair of the TUCJCC. That is not an
‘office’; it is certainly not an office in Unite and besides Alec’s position on
the TUCJCC is also because he is a member of Unison. More significantly still,
the TUC has no power to prevent Trades Union Councils nominating who they wish
to represent them on the TUCJCC, the TUC has no disciplinary powers over
members of affiliated unions and had held no hearing to allow Alec to present a
case before imposing such a penalty. But the penalty imposed by the TUC went
yet further than that imposed by Unite: Alec was barred from unofficial
pre-meetings of the TUCJCC and from attending any TUC event, including those
open to the public!
Questions have even been raised about Alec’s employment.
Facebook Lies
Now new evidence has emerged from the Facebook postings of
the complainant. She has changed her mind again and decided to revert to
claiming that the incident did take place and she has broadcast details of the
allegation along with grossly offensive comments about Alec. Even more
disturbingly, having linked to an article about an (unrelated) Employment
Tribunal case against UNITE for sexual harassment she made the following
comment in relation to her own case:
‘In my experience the equalities officer was invisible, the
questioning that I was subject to would not be out of place among rape
apologists, the concern for the person making the complaint was non–existent’.
This is a quite remarkable claim since one of the most
unjust features of this drawn out disciplinary process is that the complainant
was never questioned about her allegation - let alone in the manner she
describes. She was never present to face any questions put to her by Alec, his
rep or the Disciplinary or Appeal Panels which took the decisions. Before the
Investigatory Panel the notes show that she was never asked even to describe
the alleged incident; her prepared statement was simply accepted as fact. The
sole questions about the alleged incident were: ‘…you had to ask him to move is
this when the incident happened? And if so what kind of a slap was it?’ To
which the answer was ‘Yes. It was a hard slap; I was shocked and carried on
walking…’ The allegation that the Unite Investigation Panel were behaving like
‘rape apologists’ is both a very serious allegation and one that is totally
refuted by the notes.
This Facebook posting casts further serious doubt on the
credibility of the complainant.
Unfortunately there is no further appeal under Unite rules
and Alec appears to have no alternative but to take his case to the
Certification Officer, given the appalling consequences that he is facing.
Every trade unionist should fight to root sexual harassment
out of our movement and ensure our events are safe places for all members. But
there is also no place in our movement for those who make false accusations
against individuals and the union, then broadcast false and wholly misleading
details of the matter on social media. More than that, no-one should be
convicted without a fair trial.
Defend Alec
Alec has a long and proud record of promoting and
encouraging women to get active in the union movement, he has never been
subject to these kind of accusations in over 50 years of service in the
movement. Natural justice is a requirement of Unite’s disciplinary rules (rule
27.2) but Alec has been denied it. Here, that denial was in refusing Alec the
right to question those who made allegations against him and in refusing to
hear a witness who had vital evidence for his defence. The witness statements
of many respected people present at the restaurant where the alleged incident
took place have been simply ignored or discounted. He has had confidential
details of an internal union matters leaked to the press where it was spun to
attack Jeremy Corbyn. He has now discovered that his accuser has put on social
media claims which are clearly both untrue and bring the union into disrepute.
He has been removed and suspended from office for over 5
years and the TUC has tried to remove him from elected positions that are
completely unconnected to his membership of Unite.
Questions for Unite
We call on the Executive Committee of UNITE and the General
Secretary to review this case as a matter of urgency. As trade unionists we
fight on a daily basis against injustice; we cannot allow this to happen to
Alec. Please support our call for a review of this decision and an
investigation into the scandalous claims made by the complainant and the manner
in which confidential information was leaked to the Tory media to be used to attack
both Alec and Jeremy Corbyn.
Printed and Published by defend Alec McFadden campaign
Posts
