Donate to build socialist media: We have the biggest opportunity in a generation for socialist ideas to gain ground. Help us raise £10,000 so we can rise to the challenge. Read more »
Close this message

How the ‘shabby’ Unison leadership put workers’ rights in jeopardy

Witch-hunted activist Glenn Kelly explains how the actions of the UNISON leadership could have seriously weakened a worker's right to take on their employers in the courts
20 July 2012

In a humiliating response to Unison's attempts to bully four witch-hunted Socialist Party members out of defending ourselves in court due to lack of money, Lord Justice Elias has called Unison ‘shabby’.

The judge went on to say: ‘Imagine if it was an employer trying to do it to a union, one would be shocked’. In another attack he said: ‘What do you want, do you want no opposition at the appeal, is that it? Or is this just a grudge match?’

Unison is wasting members' money by appealing against two previous decisions by the courts that found that the union leadership's action against the four was ‘unjustifiable’.

On 17 July Unison demanded the right to claim costs if they win the appeal. The four's costs are £100,000. But the Unison leadership's demands were thrown out of court.

It is disgraceful that, through this demand for costs, Unison risked reinforcing case law by defending the bosses' right to claim costs against workers. It is bad enough that the union is acting in a malicious way against us. But to damage the rights of all British workers is unforgivable.

99.9% of employment tribunal cases will obviously be a worker verses an employer. In most cases workers cannot have costs awarded against them in an Employment Tribunal or Employment Appeal Tribunal.

But if a worker wants to appeal or defend an appeal to the court of appeal against an employer, they can face costs of £100,000 or more if they lose. In most cases this allows a bullying employer to force workers to back down.

It is clear that the Tories are looking to ratchet up the anti worker laws to aid the employers in carrying out cuts and protect their profits. They have already given the right to the bosses to unfairly sack a worker who has less than two years' service without being taken to a tribunal. They are about to charge workers £1,200 if they want to lodge a claim at a tribunal - which they will not necessarily get back even if they win.

Through this attempt to extract costs, the Unison leadership was seeking to further weaken a worker's right to take on the employers in the courts.

We could not have afforded to defend our case if we had not won this costs protection order, so we would have had to withdraw. Unlike in the lower courts, the case would have gone ahead in our absence.

If in those circumstances Unison had won, it could not have claimed its costs against us anyway. So Unison had nothing to lose by stating it wouldn't claim costs against us - unless of course its intention was to bully us out of being represented.


Mass civil disobedience in Sudan

A three-day general strike has brought Sudan to a stand still as people mobilise against the government and inequality. Jenny Nelson writes.

New Cross fights new wave of housing privatisation

Lewisham residents object to a new trend in local authority housing developments

Stand-off with prison profiteers at the Tower of London

Marienna Pope-Weidemann reports on disruption at the European Custody and Detention Summit

Nowhere to go: Sisters Uncut demand homes free from violence

South East London Sisters Uncut stormed Southwark Council’s quarterly cabinet to highlight the council’s failure to support domestic violence survivors. Emma Snaith reports

Will Podmore 30 July 2012, 13.50

Unison’s action against these 4 splitters was totally justifiable and justified.
The four are relying on the state to defend them against the union.
And, it is no surprise that the judge rules against, and insults, the union.
And it is no surprise that Red Pepper defends the splitters against the union.
Glenn Kelly writes, “99.9% of employment tribunal cases will obviously be a worker verses an employer.” No, if the four are not defeated, then there will be all too many cases where anti-union ‘members’ attack the union in employment tribunal cases.

Michael 1 August 2012, 17.42

“Totally justifiable and justified”? Really? Not only was the original disciplinary action taken on the basis of a transparently absurd interpretation of a leaflet (as was proved at tribunal), these victimised activists are to bullied out of their right to defend the outcome of that tribunal? And by risking a legal precedent that would see workers deterred from taking legit claims against unscrupulous employers?

The idea that these leading activists had an “anti-union” agenda is risible.

Harry 8 August 2012, 06.55

Disgusting behaviour by UNISON but not surprising. I had a nightmare couple of years with my employer. The UNISON rep would turn up late for meetings or not at all, when he was there he was silent, it was impossible to get hold of him to plan for meetings. Cost me a period of depression, my job and a good few quid, not to mention my subs!!

Will Podmore 14 August 2012, 15.19

Well Harry, why didn’t you stand for election and oust him?
It’s always somebody else’s fault, for some people!
Michael seems to be pretty anti-union himself: is he one of those ‘activists’ who attack their own union under the false flag of attacking ‘union bureaucrats’?

Comments are now closed on this article.

Red Pepper · 44-48 Shepherdess Walk, London N1 7JP · +44 (0)20 7324 5068 · office[at]
Advertise · Press · Donate
For subscriptions enquiries please email