An Inspector Calls?

'Lancaster Unity' have published an interesting article:- Lancaster Unity: TU Certification Office investigating Solidarity

The infantile leftists at the LU blog have a lot to say about the Solidarity Union (little of it accurate). Let's take a look at their latest assertions and arguments.

They begin by reproducing the statement from the Certification Office announcing an enquiry into Solidarity. Then they state:-

"It is a very strange thing indeed that the supposed General Secretary of a supposed trade union only thinks it "possible" that the Certification Office is a "neutral party", as if he had no idea what the Certification Office existed for."

Really? Do they find it strange that some members of our Union doubt the neutrality of a State agency? A State agency which has been bombarded with letters from our Union rivals, traitors and political opponents seeking to pressurise them into closing our Union down. How odd of them! For the record, I still entertain the hope that the CO is neutral - time will tell whether I or the cynics are right. I fully expect that once presented with the evidence the CO will discount the many malicious and vexatious allegations which have been made against our independent Union.

'Lancaster Unity' then seek to question what services our Union provides. It is a matter of record that we have provided members with representation at various stages of grievance procedures, benefits appeals, disciplinary hearings, ACAS concilliation, and have put in cases on their behalf to Employment Tribunals. Our last case resulted in a negotiated settlement (including a confidentiality clause) to the benefit of a member who quit his job. To argue that we have only one case is inaccurate and childish. So far we have represented around twenty of our members in different respects. We have attended meetings at Astra Zenica, GNER, Cummings, Middlesbrough FC, Alliance and Leicester, County Durham and 'Harvey Nicks' to name a few. 'Lancaster Unity' may not like our Union for political reasons but there is little point in them making assertions which can be disproved with ease.

Next they state:-

"As we have seen in past articles, it is very far from being the "One Big Union" of Harrington's vaulting aspirations, having only 211 members (allegedly), and having stirred little interest among the BNP membership at which it aims itself. Its annual conference was a tawdry hole and corner affair hedged about with tight security, and attended by only 27 members - almost a third of those sitting on the Executive platform."

Solidarity continues to recruit. We announced the figure of 211 members some time ago. Each week more join. Members of the BNP join our Union because we are prepared to uphold their rights as well as others. We stand against discrimination on political grounds in the same way that we oppose discrimination on racial, sexual, religious or other grounds. It is true that only a tiny proportion of BNP members are also members of our Union. Those that are have, in many cases, been active Trade Unionists for many years.

All Solidarity meetings have "tight security". At our Annual Conference, held in Birmingham, threats were made by supporters of 'Lancaster Unity' to Hotel staff. This was very distressing for workers simply doing a job (many of them from ethnic minorities). 27 in attendance represents over 13 per cent of our membership. If that percentage figure remains the same as we grow I will be quite content. We have seven members of our Executive and they were all present. Next year the Executive will consider subsidising travel for those attending.

Then 'Lancaster Unity' turn to Mark Walker:-

"And, of course, it has taken on only one case since its inception, that of sacked teacher Mark Walker, a BNP man advised by the useless "fighting union" to find himself a lawyer specialising in employment law."

As I have already pointed out we have taken on over twenty cases - not one. Mark Walker has not been sacked (attention to detail please comrades!). He has been suspended on full-pay for over fourteen months now. It was only recently that the management investigation was completed. It is only now that we expect to move to a formal disciplinary. I represented Mark at the last meeting in May personally. I will continue to represent him at any future meetings. Our Union (alongside Civil Liberty) is paying for an Employment Lawyer for specific aspects of this complex case. It is not unusual for Trade Unions to utilise the services of lawyers! Many of our members know Mark and can ask him themselves whether he thinks the £1.25 a week we charge represents good value for money!