U is for Vendetta

Jimmy Warne - illegally expelled
If you ever wondered why we need election of officials in this union, read this story.  If you ever thought that reports of the union being controlled by a small, paid, 'General Secretary supporters club' were exaggerated, read this story.

Jimmy Warne was chair of the 'lay' (unpaid) Broad Left in the union (Amicus) from 2001-2006.  This was the 'Gazette' group which fought hard to topple the corrupt Right wing regime of Sir Ken Jackson .  We won that battle and put in place the supposed Left winger Derek Simpson, who claimed 'election of officials' was his guiding principle.  Clearly it turned out not to be. Jimmy Warne stood up to Simpson and was instrumental in exposing 'Baylissgate'.

In return Simpson sacked Jimmy from his union job.  Jimmy won an unfair dismissal  settlement at an Employment Tribunal.  Not content with this, Simpson's paid staff continued to harass Jimmy and eventually expelled him in May 2009, with a typical mixture of incompetence and malice. They did not tell Jimmy until December 2009.  In January 2010 Jimmy took the union to another Employment Tribunal (ET)  claiming the expulsion was unjustifiable discipline.  Last week the ET gave its unanimous and damning judgement which we publish in full here.

It is an extraordinary decision.  Jimmy's counsel Jody Atkinson told us
"I am pleased to report that we were successful on every point, despite the employment by Unite of expensive London counsel to take every technical point under the sun, and constant threats of costs from the Union's own solicitors Thompsons, who should know better. Davey Hall and Jeff Tate were found to have acted maliciously by seeking to victimise Jimmy for his previous Tribunal claim made during the Baylissgate Affair."
Jimmy himself told us:
"Tate and Hall and therefore Unite have had a vendetta against me and my Branch since the Union dismissed me for whistle blowing. Finally I have been vindicated and I call upon the General Secretary elect to suspend both Hall and Tate immediately and have an independent inquiry into this affair.   I am confident that if Hall and Tate are questioned they will tell us that they were acting under instruction."
The plot is a little Kafkaesque but in essence it was -
  1. Sack Jimmy.
  2. Wait for him to make an application for exemption from union subs due to unemployment.
  3. 'Lose' the application (and 'lose' a follow up one) and let him mount up arrears without telling him.
  4. When he is 26 weeks in arrears expel him as per the rules (but don't tell him).
  5. Now wait until 6 months have passed before informing him.  This will make any application he makes to an Employment Tribunal (ET) 'out of time' .
Fortunately the ET saw through this.  The tribunal consists of a Judge, an ex union
person and an ex employer person. Normally ET  judgements are mild, measured and careful.   No one is actually accused of lying or being drunk, even when they clearly were.  At dearunite.com we've become used to reading ET cases which our union has lost, like Des Heemskerk's one.  The unusual feature of them is the strong language the ET does use.  This case is no exception.

Davey Hall "wholly inconsistent"
Jeff Tate "under the influence"?
Jeff Tate, a Regional Coordinator and Davey Hall, a regional secretary were the two union suits employed to dirty their hands with the expulsion. They did it willingly.  On page 8 the Judge writes:
"there was a considerable amount of animosity towards him [Jimmy] on the part of Mr Hall, Mr Tate and probably some others."
And here is the first gentle hint at lying (page 8):
"although in cross-examination he [Tate] denied that [Jimmy's behaviour which he didn't like] included the fact that he had brought a Tribunal claim against the respondent [Unite], we did not accept that denial"
Not just Tate but Hall as well:
"Before us there was a dispute as to whether, as Mr Smith [Ray Smith, Jimmy's branch Secretary and supporter] maintained, Mr Hall had instructed him to alter those minutes so as to remove all references to the claimant and not to include his name thereafter or, as Mr Hall insisted in cross-examination, he had never seen those minutes .... We accepted the account of Mr Smith."
And now Smith v Hall:.
"In a letter dated 21 September 2006, Mr Smith had complained to Mr Hall that the latter had "instructed me to remove from the July minutes of the Branch all reference to Jimmy Warne": that letter was entirely consistent with his evidence to us."
"Mr Hall, whilst stating that he "categorically did not instruct you to remove all references to Mr Warne", went on to say that "you were in fact provided with an option and following your consideration reported to the Regional Office that the comments relating to Mr Warne could be taken out",. Hall headed the letter "Re: Newcastle Central Branch 1901 July 2006 Branch Minutes" (which he told us he had never seen): this letter was wholly inconsistent with his account to us. In the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Smith"
Back to Tate where it gets spicy (for an ET at least):
As well as discussing lying and drunkenness the ET go on to consider the evidence of another union employee, Pat Nevard, an administrator in the subscriptions department.

Pat was the person who crucially did not action a Membership Change Request that Jimmy's branch secretary sent in in May 2006.  This would have exempted Jimmy from contributions due to his unemployed status after Simpson sacked him. Instead the union's records for Jimmy started to clock up arrears.  The ET decided the union did receive the Change Request but Pat claimed the membership department had never given it to her (page 8).  

Pat and Jimmy had a polite phone conversation on 18th Dec 2009 about branch business.  At this time Pat had already marked Jimmy down as expelled in the union records, yet she forgot to drop that in to the conversation.   In fact Jimmy was not told he had been expelled until seven months after it happened! On page 13:
"Unsurprisingly, before us the claimant [Jimmy] was of the view that she [Pat] must have been instructed not to mention the matter. We did not consider it necessary to go so far but her [Pat Nevard's] silence on the point was astonishing and on the face of matters without satisfactory explanation."
This is extraordinary language for an ET. Although Nevard did not tell Jimmy she did inform Tate that day, who was delighted:
"In his witness statement, Mr Tate stated: "I cannot pretend that I was not quite pleased at the idea that (the claimant) had left the Union" and he confirmed that in oral evidence. In fact, in our judgment, that was a considerable understatement: he would have been delighted."
We had no doubt that that would also have been the reaction of Mr Hall when Mr Tate very promptly telephoned him with the news. It was then decided by them that the claimant's position would be exposed at the forthcoming branch meeting."
Tate and Hall must have thought it would be great fun to inform Jimmy of his expulsion in the middle of Jimmy's branch meeting that evening, in front of all the members.  On page  14 the tribunal gives an amazing account of what happened:
"The monthly meeting began at 7.15pm on Friday 18 December 2009.  Mr Tate made no attempt whatever, before the meeting began, to forewarn the claimant [Jimmy] of the matters which he intended to raise [his expulsion] or to give him the opportunity to explain them. ... Not only did Mr Tate wait until some four other members had arrived and the meeting had commenced, he did not even raise the matter at the outset. As the minutes make clear - and as Mr Tate accepted in his oral evidence, further acknowledging that 30 minutes may have passed - he waited patiently until the notes of the previous meeting had been read and accepted as a true record, it had been agreed that no matters arose from that previous meeting and six separate items of correspondence had been itemised. It was only at that point that, as the minutes recorded, he informed the meeting that:

" ... the Branch Chair, (the claimant), had been expelled from the Union on 1st July 2009. The reason for expulsion according to Jeff Tate was non­payment of membership contributions. He also stated that the Branch Secretary [Ray Smith] was £90 in arrears and would be expelled if these membership contributions were not paid. There followed a long and heated discussion. In this discussion Jeff Tate stated that he had been sent to the meeting to inform people of the expulsion. He could not say who had taken the decision to expel (the claimant). He could not say who had instructed him to tell the meeting of (the claimant's) expulsion." "
The ET summarised it thus:
"Mr Tate had carefully waited with this information so as to cause the claimant the maximum amount of surprise, distress and if possible humiliation."
Ray Smith and Jimmy then began writing to question and complain about Jimmy's expulsion.  Hall was cocky enough to take the piss, or in ET words, 'add insult to injury' (page 16):
"There was no attempt to acknowledge let alone reply to all of the many complaints made by the claimant. In our judgment adding insult to injury, Mr Hall enclosed an application form should the claimant wish "to rejoin the union". On the following day, probably after receipt of this letter, the claimant delivered by hand to the Employment Tribunal his claim form by which he sought "to be returned to Membership and the Chairmanship of Newcastle Central Branch".
Jimmy refused to stand down as chair of the branch; Tate then resorted to harassing the next branch meeting in January 2010, with another paid official, a Mr Cole.They said the meeting was illegal and even tried, like a couple of bouncers, to stop members entering the room (page 16).

On page 17 the ET make this astonishing revelation demonstrating the incompetence within Unite for not sending out termination letters (SP3s):
  "neither the claimant nor anyone else since at least 2006 had been expelled from the respondent's membership in accordance with its rules"
However Jimmy should at least have received 2 official letters from the union, SP1 and SP2 telling him his was showing as in arrears.  Pat Nevard said they were sent.  Jimmy never received them.  The ET accepted that Jimmy had "never received such letters.".

The Union's Executive Council meeting 20-22 Jan 2010 were told that
The Tribunal said that meeting's discussion would be a "remarkable coincidence" if it did not arise directly from Jimmy's case.  They added that the minutes of the Jan 2010 Exec meeting
There were many technical arguments deployed by the union's barrister to get them off the hook, none of which impressed the Tribunal, e.g.
"We were not impressed by the respondent's efforts to suggest a meaningful distinction between a decision to expel someone and a decision to tell someone that they had been expelled"
"We regarded as wholly artificial the suggestion of a distinction between expelling a member and telling that member that he had been expelled"
In a nutshell the Tribunal judged that the two union officials Hall and Tate victimised Jimmy because he had  challenged one of the two General Secretary supporters' clubs that ran this union.
The Tribunal found that with any ordinary branch chair:
The full judgement is here.

Does our union exist for us or is it there for the senior officials?  Are members part of the democracy of the union or are they a nuisance to be just sold insurance to and victimised when they speak up?  Only when officials are subject to election instead of appointment by the General Secretary will things change.

39 comments:

  1. F**kin Hell. That is a disgrace

    ReplyDelete
  2. Am i missing something here but wasn't Jimmy Warne an appointed union employee who fell foul of the Amicus regime under Simpson who is no longer GS?

    Warne who was happy to be appointed to a job like most people are in the UK now is an ardent supporter of the election of trade union employees.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are definitely missing something. Yes of course Warne was appointed, there were no elections then. How else could he become an officer. Duh.

    The point is Simpson promised elections, conference passed it and Simpson tried to prevent it. Only one election ever happened (and Simpsons club lost it) before the TGWU merger squashed it. Jimmy has always supported and fought for election of officers.

    Most people in the UK who are employed to represent other people are elected by those people, not appointed. But democracy is obviously not good enough for Unite.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DearUnite is missing something talking about a situation in a union that no longer exists.

    The point is Amicus no longer exists - its a dead Union.

    Its funny that people like Warne and Heemskerk were glad to be appointed to cushy union desk jobs which included not representing anyone and when they fell foul of their chosen one they become zealous proponents of the election of officials.

    The simple answer to this is to have the principles in the first place and decline a job offer because it is an appointment and not an elected one.

    This is what Jerry Hicks claims he did and if it is true then although i don't agree with him i respect and admire his integrity on this matter - pity Warne and Heemskerk didn't have the same principles and were happy to get on the Simpson gravy train until it hit the buffers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. warne and heemskerk were always proponents of election of officials it was the main platform of simpsons election campaign simpson and T&G killed it

    ReplyDelete
  6. The election of officials but not of themselves, nice one. I am all right Jack pull the ladder up. They didnt even have jobs where they had to represent any member. Very cushy and thank you Baron Derek.

    The point is they should have taken Jerry Hicks principled position and not taken Simpson's coin and kissed him flag.

    If it was good enough for Hicks why not for Warne and Heemskerk?

    Also there was no tradition with any section of the T&G calling for the election of officials based on the sound understanding that is was unworkable.

    The election of officers only came from parts of what made up the now defunct Amicus and when UNITE was created it fell to the wayside but as far as i know noone was killed over it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a union so corrupt it treats it's employees in the way it supposed to defend it's members. Simpson used these people and others to get him elected then once at the top discarded them like used tissues.
    All animals are equal just some more equal than others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Been in the union 35 years it has got worse every year only solution is election of officials. Even the pro union academics who study unions think it is the solution. Strangely the appointed officials are the only ones to oppose it. If we had it Jimmy wouldnt have been sacked and the officials wouldn't have victimised him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is it me or does the photo of Jimmy Warne mlook like a stereotypical over paid appointed trade union official?

    Oh i forgot he was one!

    ReplyDelete
  10. hall looks like hannibal lecter

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jeff Tate is David Camerons fat older brother

    ReplyDelete
  12. Even pro union academics who study unions think it is the solution. Really? Who are these academics? Please can you name them?

    I mean if you say the word academics then they must be right as they study in things called ivory towers and know everything.

    The problem would never arisen if what we are told that Jimmy Warne as a devout supporter of the election of union officials hadn't been a hypocrite and gone for an interview and accepted an appointed job.

    He should have had done what Jerry Hicks said he did and declined such an offer.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think academics should be elected by the students they teach. That will make them more representative.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So you think your job is to teach union members do you? That explains a lot. Wake up! Your job is to represent us!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think a union officials job is to organise members and not represent them. It a clear difference between a right wing moribund servicing model and a left wing organising model.

    Although when Warne and Heemskerk were appointed officials in cushy desk jobs getting fat of the back of members dues they neither represented or organised members. Kerching!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous comments.

    No problem with that but please consider leaving a name, it can be a made up one. It just makes the comments easier to read.

    To do this, where it says "Comment as:", chose "name/URL" from the drop down. You don't have to put in a URL. Note for officials: you don't even have to use the same name each time, you can use multiple ones. You can even try playing with abusive names ('try' being the key word there)

    ReplyDelete
  17. No i think an academics job is to teach students and in a democracy students should be able to elect their teachers/tutors/professors.
    Wake up! Your job is to read what people actually write and quite clearly your teachers failed probably due to the fact they were appointed and not elected.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In the TGWU the General Secretary didnt appoint officials. They were appointed by 3 members of the GEC. The GEC reps were elected.

    I havent a problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I understand Tate was Bayliss's driver throughout his awful election campaign. Hall is also a Bayliss man. Both have no connection to UL or Len McCluskey. They both represent the corrupt side of Amicus that needs to be crushed and buried by the new leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  20. its time these bent officers were slung out of our union. they bring it into disrepute and are a disgrace. so much for being a lay member led union - pull the other one

    Elv

    ReplyDelete
  21. Against revision of historyDecember 26, 2010 4:19 pm

    Jimmy Warne was not an officer of the union who represented workers. He worked in the union education department delivering education courses. Des Heemskerk worked in the communications department issuing press releases and administering campaigns. Cathie Willis worked in the Purchasing Department and had been hounded in that role by the Jackson regime. They were employees of the union not officials. Jerry Hicks turned down a job in the union as a Regional Officer on principle because he stands for election of Officials. Officials represent workers in negotiations with employers and should be accountable to those workers. Employees do not. That is the key difference. Heemskerk, Warne and Willis were not “appointed officials in cushy desk jobs getting fat of the back of members dues”. In fact Heemskerk took a pay cut from his previous job in the motor vehicle industry where he had been an elected Senior Shop Steward. As the Chair and Editor of the Broad Left Amicus Unity Gazette who helped defeat Sir Ken Jackson in 2002 Heemskerk and Warne always supported and defended the principle of elected Officers of the Union. That is why a Tribunal found that they had been unfairly dismissed from their jobs. This was part of a witchhunt to remove those who supported a principled left position from the leadership of the left.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you think this is bad then hold your breath for whats to come. This year will not be a good one for Unite.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Against revision of the factsDecember 29, 2010 7:04 pm

    So Jimmy Warne wasn't the regional education officer then, because that is what the position he had is called in Unite? Its well paid and if Mr Warne had any principles like Jerry Hicks he would have turned down the appointment as he to believes in the election of officer positions.

    Des Heemskerk had a cushy job in the press and communication department which was and is well paid. You seem to know so much can you tell us a person in that department now earns?

    True its not a officers position but its seen as a senior staff position and we really are playing semantics here if we are going to take the elections of officials line as this job is very influential and if you believe in this kind of democracy should also be elected by members.

    Many in the Union felt when Heemskerk got the job it was kick back for getting his man Derek Simpson elected.

    God know what Heemskerk was on before but it does show that the over paid officials jibe is a bit of a red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Warne was given a job in education, but he mostly “educated” shop stewards on stage 1 courses. This didn't go down well with other tutors who had to teach all courses and believed they had the ability to do so, (do you remember the equal pay claims and dismissal letters?)... Access to stage 1 stewards can be useful if you want to teach stewards to think politically...especially if that falls in line with what you want them to think. Finally, my own lesson, for those that invite someone into your own bed don't be surprised if s/he gives you a good f******, and to those that choose to climb into the bed, don't be surprised if s/he returns the compliment...

    The Watcher

    ReplyDelete
  25. the equalpay story was covered by amicus.cc here It was Sept 2006. Jimmy was sacked in March 2006. The equal pay claim and dismissal letters were nothing to do with Jimmy it was straightforward sex discrimination and bullying by a union.

    ReplyDelete
  26. come on, lets get real

    lets look at davison - a so called lay member who has been on the gravy train for years

    he has had benefit of being a tutor for union courses

    a seriel traveller and globe trotter

    a fantasist

    simpsons and bayliss bag carriar and lackey

    on the nec for years despite not representing anyone but his paymasters

    its time he was ousted

    ReplyDelete
  27. To the Watcher,
    So do you agree that Jimmy Warne, Des Heemskerk, Cathie Willis and Marian Stokes should all have been witch hunted out of their jobs then?

    ReplyDelete
  28. No certainly not...no trade unionist would condone such behaviour. The point being made was oligarchies, left or right, appoint in their own image...The Watcher

    ReplyDelete
  29. The point is that Heemskerk and Warne sold their principles and their souls to the devil and then come across all shocked and surprised when it all went wrong.... The Timekeeper

    ReplyDelete
  30. but at that time simpson was the solution not the problem (jackson)and the principles were good ones. simpson betrayed them, no souls were sold except his, bayliss having already signed up to hell. if youre never shocked and surprised when a leader sells out you will never support any change

    ReplyDelete
  31. And who were the 'Devils' - 'no Trade Unionists' - who sanctioned the actions of Simpson? The so-called left (apart from an honourable few) on both the Amicus and T&G Executives who santioned these wrongful dismissals by refusing to reinstate! By and large the same self-serving 'non-Trade Unionists' who are now seeking re-election to the Unite Executive!

    ReplyDelete
  32. So Heemskerk and Warne were child like innocents and were led like lambs to the slaughter?

    I don't think so.

    The were and still are advocates for the elections of officials yet when their man got elected they stuck their noses in the trough by being given and glady accepting well paid appointed jobs by their new lord and master.

    Funny how their principles went out of the window for a cushy bureaucratic salary. It smacks of hypocrisy and they get upset when it all unravelled.

    As others on here have commented before whether you like Jerry Hicks or not at least the man stuck by his principles and turned down being given a job and didn't sell out for a few pieces of silver...... The Timekeeper

    ReplyDelete
  33. timkeeper which bit do you not understand of the following:
    Jimmy Warne was not an officer of the union who represented workers. He worked in the union education department delivering education courses. Des Heemskerk worked in the communications department issuing press releases and administering campaigns. Cathie Willis worked in the Purchasing Department and had been hounded in that role by the Jackson regime. They were employees of the union not officials. Jerry Hicks turned down a job in the union as a Regional Officer on principle because he stands for election of Officials. Officials represent workers in negotiations with employers and should be accountable to those workers. Employees do not. That is the key difference. Heemskerk, Warne and Willis were not “appointed officials in cushy desk jobs getting fat of the back of members dues”. In fact Heemskerk took a pay cut from his previous job in the motor vehicle industry where he had been an elected Senior Shop Steward. As the Chair and Editor of the Broad Left Amicus Unity Gazette who helped defeat Sir Ken Jackson in 2002 Heemskerk and Warne always supported and defended the principle of elected Officers of the Union. That is why a Tribunal found that they had been unfairly dismissed from their jobs. This was part of a witchhunt to remove those who supported a principled left position from the leadership of the left.

    ReplyDelete
  34. A good prescriptive description, and you are correct, there is a big difference between being an officer and a member of staff/local rep, but have you overlooked the points being made? Did either Warne or Heemskerk sit a competitive interview for their roles?

    In all probability, maybe not, I don't know, but I suggest that their appointments would be twofold. One for doing the actually role and second, to support and protect the oligarchy. At some point both must have questioned the direction of it, hence the big falling out. The Watcher.

    ReplyDelete
  35. # January 04, 2011 1:32 PM

    Fact No: 1
    Jimmy Warne was employed as an education officer - key word being officer!

    Fact No: 2 Regional Officers are also employees of the Union and have contracts of employment like other staff and like members they organise and service.

    Fact No: 3 Heemskerk took a pay cut to take a very well paid senior job in the press and comminication dept which rather blows apart the criticism of over paid officials.

    Possibly a fact that Heemskerk and Warne got given cushy jobs on a nod and wink for services rendered in getting their man the top job. If so not very democratic, not very transparent or accountable and very hypocritical........ The Timekeeper

    ReplyDelete
  36. dear timkeeper

    You might think what you are trying to do is very clever but honestly its not. Trying to apply the dearunite exposure method against Jimmy and Des. This sort of thing is not new, Simpson tried it with www.amicusttt.com (Trots Trials and Tribulations) against amicus.cc. No one read it. Your problem is that those of us who fought to get Simpson elected and to change our union, know he sold out and we know though who stayed with their principles and tried to stop him. Their aims always was to better the union, not money. What you don't realise is that not everyone is corrupt. Dearunite.com know that very well (hence the support for Hicks, Des and Jimmy), its just our main job is to expose the corrupt and improve the union. Anyway at least you are not keeping up the personal abuse which is typically the first reaction of the corrupt, so keep trying. Don't know if anyone is reading your stuff though, I've got bored with it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mr Hall has resigned.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jumped before he was pushed more like it and because he did what he did should of went long ago

    ReplyDelete
  39. davey hall was one of the good guys in unite,unite and there solicitors are lying scum wasting members money on freebees and hols

    ReplyDelete