Unison: Defend Caroline Bedale

CAROLINE BEDALE from Manchester has been banned from holding UNISON office for 8 years. All charges relate to the campaign to reinstate Karen Reissmann – who had been sacked by her employer (Manchester Mental Health Trust and Social Care Trust) – and who was supported by UNISON in this campaign, not just for reinstatement to her job but for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.

Caroline Bedale has been found guilty by a UNISON Disciplinary Committee of charges relating to things she did after UNISON withdrew legal assistance from Karen Reissmann, just before Karen's case was due to be heard by an Employment Tribunal. The disciplinary penalty means she will be barred from holding union office for 8 years.

What Would You Have Done?

Legal assistance was withdrawn because Karen decided not to take some legal advice. Only the legal assistance was withdrawn – UNISON policy continued to support the campaign for Karen's reinstatement and for the right for trade union activists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.

What would you have done if your branch was under attack from a vindictive employer who had sacked the Chairperson of your branch because of their trade union work and speaking out against cuts and privatisation? Wouldn't you have been dismayed if, after an unprecedented strike by health workers and a high profile union campaign for reinstatement, the union‟s legal assistance had been withdrawn? Given that the union policy of campaigning for Karen's reinstatement still continued wouldn’t you have done what you could to defend and support her?

What Caroline is charged with

A: “Seeking to secure alternative legal advice and representation for Karen Reissmann, whose legal advice and representation had been terminated by the Union”.

B: “Campaigning against UNISON policy” – that policy is defined as “the decision of UNISON to withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann” – and that Caroline has acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing.

C: “Using UNISON resources to campaign against UNISON policy” – Caroline is said to have campaigned against the Union’s rules and policy, and acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing. It is not specified what rules she is meant to have campaigned against, and the “policy‟ is actually a “decision‟ not a policy.

What Caroline did – as Joint Branch Secretary

1. At Karen's request, Caroline sent a letter to Salford Unemployed and Community Resource Centre (SUCRC) asking if they would “look into taking on” Karen's case if UNISON did not agree to continue the legal assistance. No UNISON funds were used for Karen‟s new legal representation.

2. As agreed by the Branch Committee, Caroline sent a letter to all branches in September 2008 to update them on Karen's case, and to say that the campaign continued for her reinstatement and for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation. The letter asked branches to sign an open letter and petition to Ivan Lewis MP. A branch delegation together with the NW Regional Secretary, Frank Hont, was planning to meet him about Karen.

The letter mentioned that the Union had withdrawn legal assistance, and said that the Branch Committee “think this is a shame”. That was the only comment on the withdrawal of legal assistance – but this is said to be "campaigning against UNISON policy‟ and prejudicial to the union. There was NO campaign to get the union to reinstate legal assistance. There WAS a continuing campaign in support of Karen, supported at national, regional and branch levels. Caroline was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this letter, but was found to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the union.

What Caroline did – in a PRIVATE capacity, but which she is accused of having done “whilst Joint Branch Secretary”. This is a crucial issue for all union activists – we must be allowed to do things in our private life which are not under the control and scrutiny of the union.

3. She allowed her private telephone numbers to be used as the contact point on a press release from the independent  “Reinstate Karen Reissmann Campaign‟.

4. Caroline sent an email from her own computer using her email to a closed discussion email group for members of the United Left in UNISON, to let them know what was happening in Karen's case. She said that legal assistance had been withdrawn and that there were attempts to persuade the union to reinstate legal support. This email is said to have been “in furtherance of a campaign against a decision of UNISON to withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann”. There was NO such campaign to try to get the legal representation reinstated. A comment in an email does not constitute a campaign. Furthermore, it was from her private email. Caroline allows the branch to use that email address for convenience. It is not a UNISON resource, it is hers.

Again, she was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this email, but was found guilty of acting in a manner prejudicial to the union.

By these four pieces of evidence Caroline is said to have broken various rules, and to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the union. It is not clear how Caroline has broken all these rules, nor how her actions are “prejudicial to the union‟.

Is This Disciplinary Action Fair?

Caroline does not deserve to have been found guilty of the charges. She has given almost the whole of her working life to the trade union, for the benefit of members and to support public services. She does not deserve the penalty of being barred from holding any union office for 8 years – as she is 58, that will take her well beyond retirement.

Caroline is said to have acted “in a manner prejudicial to the Union and/or her Branch”. No members of her branch have complained about the way she conducts business in the branch, about her representation in individual cases, about her organising and support for groups of members, about her negotiating skills with the employer, about her tireless work for the branch, for the union and for public services.

Caroline is respected by UNISON members and by other trade unionists for her honesty and integrity and total commitment to trade union principles and to members.

If you would like to show your support for Caroline and protest against the disciplinary action, you could:

Send a letter to Dave Prentis, General Secretary, and to Gerry Gallagher, President of the NEC, at UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ.·

Consider the· model motion in your Branch.

Send copies to the Support Group for Caroline, supportcarolinebedale@googlemail.com·

Attend· meetings called by the Support Group. Monday 23rd November, 7.30pm, Friends Meeting House, Mount Street (near Manchester Town Hall).

 A website is being set up – check it for information.·
www.supportcarolinebedale.co.uk

Fri 13, November 2009 @ 12:47