Liam redux

Jerry Hicks challenges General Secretary Derek Simpson

This press release sets outs Jerry’s challenge to Derek Simpson. The government appointed certification officer has launched an enquiry into an alleged breach of law over the right of Unite Joint General Secretary Derek Simpson to remain in office beyond his retirement date. The complaint was first submitted in May 2008 by Jerry Hicks former…

Liam
1–2 minutes

This press release sets outs Jerry’s challenge to Derek Simpson.

The government appointed certification officer has launched an enquiry into an alleged breach of law over the right of Unite Joint General Secretary Derek Simpson to remain in office beyond his retirement date. The complaint was first submitted in May 2008 by Jerry Hicks former Executive council member of Amicus, who in 2005 won his case against Rolls Royce when victimised for his trade union activities.

Using the same legal opinion given to Derek Simpson, who successfully challenged Sir Ken Jackson in 2002, Mr Hicks questioned Mr Simpson’s right to remain as General Secretary after his period of office was extended by a year to beyond retirement age following the merger of Amicus and the TGWU to form Unite.

The challenge to Derek Simpson’s right to remain in office without an election was not so long ago described as having ‘no chance’ by detractors. Indeed, the union (wrongly) stated back in May that they had ‘no case to answer’ as the complaint had been rejected. But Unite the union has now been given until the 12th September 2008 to provide its defence and arguments to the Certification Office.

The enquiry represents a step closer to the prospect of an election for General Secretary having to be called. Under the rules of the merger with the TGWU Joint General Secretary Tony Woodley could be forced to stand down early and an election held next year for a new General Secretary for all the 1.9 million members of Unite.

Unite is also the largest single donator to the Labour party, £11 million since 2005 where £1.5million of which was in the last ¼ year meaning 41% of total donations.

A website www.JerryHicks4gs.com has been set up for further details.

 

21 responses to “Jerry Hicks challenges General Secretary Derek Simpson”

  1. Geoff Collier Avatar
    Geoff Collier

    Is it relevant that the new rulebook, which allows for the extension of the terms of office, was recently passed by approx 95%? I didn’t see any campaign to vote against the rulebook – which is a criticism but not just of Jerry Hicks or Respect. I voted no for several reasons, one of which was that the new union is constitutionally bound to be an affiliate of the Labour Party and no other party. This wasn’t part of the TGWU rulebook, although I don;t know about Amicus. But it seems like a major step backward to me.

    Like

    Reply
  2. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    So the way to build a class struggle left wing is to bypass and ignore the existing left alliances within the union? Is this just astrategy for Unite, or should the rest of us expect similar things from Respect Renewal supporters in our unions?

    Like

    Reply
  3. Clive Searle Avatar
    Clive Searle

    Oh Charlie – dodgy ground here. Of course the SWP have always worked within ‘existing left alliances’. Sean Doherty never stood for in the NUT elections in opposition to the existing left alliances, did he?

    Try arguing the tactical issues rather than adopting the holier than thou ‘unity’ line. It doesn’t wash anymore.

    Like

    Reply
  4. blake Avatar
    blake

    My main question regarding this is the absence of any discussion with the rest of the left. I am surprised that Jer choose to do this with no attempt to build a campaign for his position. He seems rather cut off these days which is a shame.
    Not sure what Jerry trying to do, but I guess good luck with his attempt, but next time… talk!!!

    Like

    Reply
  5. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    Clive – as I understand it, one of the major tactical issues here is precisely the fact that the organised left in Unite were bypassed by this initiative, and are opposed to it. Geoff Collier’s already mentioned another major issue, which is that this is a legal challenge to something the membership voted for.

    And the comparison with what the SWP did in the past doesn’t really work – Respect Renewal’s supposed to be an alliance of the left, looking to be a force that brings about a much wider realignment on the left. How does ignoring the expressed wishes of one of the broadest of union lefts, in the biggest union in the country, contribute to that exactly?

    Like

    Reply
  6. RobM Avatar
    RobM

    What a wonderful world you inhabit, Charlie, where Respect is expected to kow-tow to the ‘organised left’ (read SWP) but the SWP itself allows not such restrictions to be placed upon it as it is not ‘looking to be a force that brings about a much wider realignment on the left.’

    I wonder what your partners in Left Alternative (its a hypothetical question, of course) would make of this?

    Like

    Reply
  7. Andy newman Avatar
    Andy newman

    But Charlie, help me out with this, can you explain

    i) This wasn’t Jerry’s initiave. He was approaced by others not in Respect.

    ii) the “organised left” also includes simpson’s supporters. How excelty would that consultaion have worked?

    Like

    Reply
  8. Clive Searle Avatar
    Clive Searle

    Great Charlie – so your position is to always go along with what others on the ‘organised left’ say even if you think that they are wrong, is it?

    Do you have an opinion on whether Unite members are entitled to a timely vote on their General Secretary or do you think that the existing General Secretary’s supporters should be allowed to veto this because they are part of the ‘organised left’?

    The question here is democracy in the trade union movement.

    Like

    Reply
  9. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    By “existing left” he means the SWP. Presumably Jerry didn’t consult with the SWP about standing. Ergo Jerry didn’t consult with the “existing left”.
    Simple.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Geoff Collier Avatar
    Geoff Collier

    I can’t believe that anyone can believe that the “existing left” in Unite is simply equivalernt to the SWP. I’m from the TGWU side of the merger where the Broad Left involves no SWP (GB) members that I’m aware of, although I’m currently not active in the union (being a student). Yes I know it does involve Jimmy Kelly, of the Irish SWP, but he’s an exception. I know that some SWP members are involved in the Unity Gazette but they are a definite minority.

    If you need convincing, look at the new rulebook. The rules now require an affiliation to the Labour party and to no other party. That was not the case in the TGWU rules, which didn’t have either of those two points. Since the rulebook was the work of the existing left, that can’t be down to the influence of the SWP.

    Compared to that setback, having a joint GS for a while seems so trivial. Its not worth breaking the principle of keeping the state out of our affairs, especially when we just accepted the new rule book by over 19-1.

    Like

    Reply
  11. PW Avatar
    PW

    Jerry did not consult with the rest of the Left either in Amicus or the TGWU before putting in his challenge to the CO or announcing that he would stand in any subsequent election. The Broad lefts in the TGWU include Labour Party members (primarily LRC), CPB, SP and SWP members as well as many unaffiliated supporters. The left is not politically dominated by any one tendency. Derek Simpson supporters have now effectively left the Amicus Unity Gazette and banned SWP members from their rump organisation in Yorkshire (what was the Gazette Yorkshire Regional group). The Editorial Board of the Gazette issued an open statement to supports on the Jerry Hicks challenge opposing the timing of the CO case, and opposing Jerry’s unilateral decision to stand as the Left candidate. Jerry was invited to seek the support of the United Left when it beginnings considering candidates at the end of this year, provided he agreees to accept the democratic decision and, like all other candidates, agrees in advance not to stand against whoever the Left agrees is the candidate.

    Jerry has shown no sign of seeking to re-involve himself in the Gazette. He was notified of our meeting last weekend but did not attend or send apologies. This was a meeting that agreed progress on merging the two lefts, endorsed a Unite EC report that was very critical of Simpson, agreed to support John McDonnell if he stood again for the Labour leadership, and agreed a policy that the only funding Unite should provide to the Labour Party should be to constituencies where the MP or candidate supported left policies.

    As to Jerry’s campaign, at the Unite Industrial Confererences in Brighton in June, he had one other person helping him hand out leaflets, someone who currently holds no union positions (someone who has also been victimised). This person confirmed to me that no one active on the Left of the Union had asked Jerry to stand.

    Undoubably he will have some support but it is likely to be minimal. However, two left candidates in the General Secretary election, whenever it comes, cannot be helpful to the left as a whole.

    Simpson is allowed to stay on in office for an extra year under a rulebook that the membership overwelmingly agreed in two separate ballots (the Instrument of Amalgamation and the Rule Book). Like Geoff Collier, I voted no, but it does not sit well to use the Certification Officer, created by Tory anti-union laws, to overturn a decision of the membership in a ballot.

    Like

    Reply
  12. Solomon Avatar
    Solomon

    So who do you represent PW? What do a few dozen people in Preston represent out of a union of 1.9 million members, the vast majority who have never had a chance to vote in an election for their General Secretary? Why the hell should Jerry consult with you before calling for a democratic election for a General Secretary for Unite? There is no ‘United left candidate’. Get your facts right PW. The Certification Officer was created by the 1975 Employment Protection Act under the Harold Wilson government.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Jerry is not the only member who it taking Unite to court. In Belfast Unite members have been on hunger strike after being stitched up by the “left” leadership.

    http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentStatementCourtUpholdsGordonMcNeillsRightToProtest.html

    Press release – Court upholds Gordon McNeill’s right to protest

    3 September 2008

    Unite leaders forced to back down from their attempt to imprison him.

    Unite leaders’ attempt to cripple Gordon with legal costs thrown out by the court

    “I will now be returning to my lawful protest outside Transport House” Gordon McNeill

    Next protest will begin at 1pm tomorrow (Thursday 4 September)

    The case brought by the Unite leadership against sacked airport shop steward, Gordon McNeill, was heard in the Belfast High Court this morning. Unite were attempting to have Gordon imprisoned for breaking an injunction barring him from protesting at Transport House.
    Unite were forced to back off from their attempt to put Gordon in prison, but only because they had been made aware of the huge repercussions this would cause throughout the trade union movement in Britain, Ireland and beyond.

    Instead they attempted to use financial pressure to force Gordon into a settlement with the union on its terms. They tried to have the whole cost of the case awarded against him. But the Court threw this out and the costs of bringing this case will now be added to the tens of thousands of pounds of unnecessary and wasted expenditure clocked up by Unite’s leaders in their efforts to silence Gordon McNeill.

    The Court also upheld Gordon’s right to protest on the pavement outside Transport House. This means he can legally return to the spot outside the building where the court summons was served on him last Friday.

    Following the decision Gordon McNeill announced that he will now be resuming his lawful protest starting at 1pm tomorrow. After the case Gordon commented:

    “The attempt by Jimmy Kelly and Tony Woodley to have me imprisoned and to take away my democratic right to protest has fallen flat on its face.

    “I have made it clear all along that my protests are not an attempt to disrupt the work of the union. I am just trying to get the facts of this dispute across to Unite members and to the public at large.

    “I will now continue to do so. All I am asking is that the compensation they gave my two shop steward colleagues is given to me but without the clause that would gag me from ever again commenting on how our trade union officials handled our dispute.

    “As soon as they do that my protests will end. But I will not be bribed into silence and, until the gagging clause is removed, I have no option but to continue to protest and publicise this case.
    “My campaign is not against my union. Bringing out the truth about what happened will strengthen the union as it means that bad practices can be rooted out. Covering up those practices will guarantee that they continue.

    “Nor are the Unite leadership’s actions in this an attempt to “defend” the union as they would have us believe. Their only interest is to defend themselves by trying to suppress the truth about what they have done. They will never succeed in this.”

    For further information contact Gordon on 07934632366

    Like

    Reply
  14. PW Avatar
    PW

    So Solomon – is it now OK on the Left to consult with noone? I have never suggested that the existing Left organisations in Unite are perfect – far from it. But they exist – and have the support of most left political organisations. I wiould prefer to try to make the Broad Left more effective rather than launch a personal and individual campaign. I suspect that most readers of this blog would agree with that statement.

    Solomon is right that the CO was set up by the Wilson Government – but his current powers come exclusively from Tory anti-union legislation.

    Like

    Reply
  15. Solomon Avatar
    Solomon

    So PW – I repeat, why the hell should Jerry consult with you? Just who do you think you are? But you can be ignored. You are consistently wrong. Despite your enfeebled protest democracy has prevailed. Simpson has acknowledged that Jerry will win his challenge. An election will now be held. The debacle at the TUC over the refusal of Unite to support coordinated public sector strike action leaves the left in tatters. I doubt the so-called broad left will choose a genuine left candidate. Jerry will be the only choice for the left.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    PW

    Look, I think it’s best that everyone takes a step back an sees how this develops. There’s no need to go to the wall on this. There’s certainly no point in coming up with pronunciamenti about the Certification Officer being a Tory cat’s-paw; in other circumstances you would agree with seeking a ruling from the CO.

    Like

    Reply
  17. PW Avatar
    PW

    Kevin

    I’ve not been supportative of going to the CO on any cases. There might be an argument when the bureaucracy overturns a democratic decision of the membership, but I thin it is very dangerous to ask the CO to turn over a ballot decision.

    I’m not going to the wall on this. Jerry has been invited to seek the left nomination. At this stage I’m not supporting any candidate and am open to be convinced. But I do think it is wrong to principle to run a personal campaign. The left are about collective organisation.

    Solomon:

    So I am consistently wrong! Wrong to stand up to Simpson? Wrong to oppose Davidson? Wrong to say to my comrades in the TGWU BL that they should not trust Woodley?

    The fiasco of the Unite vote on the POA amendment on public sector pay was caused by the bureaucracy “losing” the voting card so it could not be cast for the amendment by the left lay delegation leader. He might have made a mistake in not getting it earlier, but he has now refused to hand it back to the bureaucracy. It was about not embarassing Brown and Darling. The same concern was demonstrated when Darling was questioned at the TUC. The bureaucracy went through the list of agreed questioners (nominated by Union delegations) and deleted those thought to be most critical.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    PW

    I don’t agree with your rigid position over the Trade Union Certification Officer.

    I think it is right over two high profile cases of victimisation in Unison that the union leadership is challenged over its refusal to implement the ruling of the Certification Officer.

    Like

    Reply
  19. PW Avatar
    PW

    Kevin

    I drew a distinction between going to the CO to overrule a membership decision and one made by the bureaucracy. The Unison cases were the latter, Jerry’s is the former.

    I may be too rigid – some of my comrades might think so – but I do think there is always a danger in inviting the state to rule on internal union matters. Two reasons. First, the state does not want to advance the cause of militant trade unionism. And the results of some cases where right wingers have gone to the CO illustrate that decisions can be taken against progressive measures (eg equalities).Secondly,I know in Unite, Simpson has historically won support by attacking members who have gone to the CO arguing that they should have used the “democratic channels” of the union. It has frequently been Simpson who has closed up these channels but many of the best union members are protective of their union structures and resent outside interference. I prefer to try to win the argument rather than argue the case for using Tory anti-union laws against the bureaucracy.

    On the decision for Simpson to stay on for an extra year. I argued against it – and many other provisions of the Instrument of Amalgamation and the Rule Book. But I coudn’t convince the majority of good comrades on both sides of the merger that the downsides were more important than the perceived gains of the merger. I think they were wrong – but how seriously would they take my arguments in the future if, whenever I lost the political argument, I went of to the CO.

    Getting rid of Roger Lyons through a CO decision didn’t advance the left in the union one iota.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Solomon Avatar
    Solomon

    PW Are you seriously trying to suggest that the membership, in voting for the new rule book, were in agreement with extending Simpsons period of office? The same rulebook to which the Executive refused to allow any lay input and who even voted to refuse permission to see the book themselves? So then the logic of your argument is that when the membership in the AEEU agreed to the rule change that allowed Jackson to stay in office without an election it was wrong of Simpson to legally challenge this? And then you defend Simpson’s hypocrisy of criticising those who followed the same actions as he did himself?

    Like

    Reply
  21. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    PW

    “I’ve not been supportative of going to the CO on any cases. There might be an argument…”

    That read to me like a definitive position with a preparedness to entertain some hypothetical, but thanks for clarifying.

    Your two reasons in the Amicus case can also be applied to Unison. I think it better to acknowledge that there is a difference over tactics here rather than some inviolable principle at stake.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

Trending