PCS democracy is being restricted…. again! Our Annual Delegate Conference. meets in May. Conference is a crucial event and the pinnacle of our union’s democracy, not least because it will determine our policies on pay, jobs and the myriad of issues that members up and down the country are faced with.
We sit on the National Standing Orders Committee (NSOC), a committee elected by members which determines the running order of branch’s motions to be debated at Conference. We stood with a team of candidates on the programme supported by the Coalition and the Broad Left network and were elected. Participating in this committee has been an eye opener.
We start from the position that all motions should be published, unless there is an exceptional reason why they shouldn’t be e.g. a motion is libellous or defamatory.
Following the disgraceful removal of motions from the agenda last year, we expected to have a battle to ensure all motions were published, let alone the order in which they would be debated. But we believe that a new, undemocratic precedent has been set and the rules are now being misused to remove motions and prevent debate because the current Left Unity/Democracy Alliance majority don’t want motions tabled on issues they don’t agree with.
This, in our view, does not sit well with the democratic traditions of our union. We must therefore disassociate ourselves with the actions of the majority of the NSOC and the actions of the General Secretary and President of this union (including unelected bureaucrats) and we want to set out why.
19 motions were sent for legal advice this year. This includes 10 motions on trans rights, 5 on issues that supposedly fall solely within the General Secretary’s terms of employment – including motions supporting victimised and sacked reps – and 4 relating to an amendment to Supplementary Rule 6.22(g). The NSOC is perfectly entitled to take legal advice,and we would defend that right. This is set outunder Supplementary Rule 6.22(g), which enables the NSOC to exclude from the conference agenda motions it considers may result in legal proceedings against the union.
We believe motions should be put before conference where elected delegates can debate them and decide what they want to do with them. If a motion is carried, and when the motion is implemented, legal matters that could then bring PCS into conflict with the law is surely something for the National Executive Committee (NEC) to consider when they discuss how to implement the policy. Our policies on the anti-Trade Union laws are an example of this – we operate within the law but still campaign in line with union policy to get these abolished.
Our view is that there has been an increasing and unsettling misuse of Supplementary Rule 6.22(g), which has been used to strike out motions we consider neither libellous nor defamatory. This has been done to motions by the NSOC itself but also to motions which were accepted by NSOC yet still sent off for legal advice regardless and without NSOCagreement. This interference is unacceptable and can only lead us to conclude that the current Left Unity/Democracy Alliance majority disagrees with them and doesn’t want them discussed.
The motions on Trans+ rights, an issue on which the union’s leadership has a history of using undemocratic methods to undermine, have now been removed from the agenda, not published and will not be discussed. No legal advice has been received which confirms that these motions are either libellous or defamatory. They were sent for legal advice on the grounds that at some hypothetical point in the future the implementation of these motions (motions that have not even been discussed, let alone carried) might lead to legal action being taken against the union. As we’ve already said, that is surely a matter for the elected NEC to take into account, if the motions are discussed and if they are carried!
Further examples of undemocratic interference include the facilitation of a meeting with the General Secretary and National President, ostensibly to discuss timetable arrangements. Not only was the meeting accommodated but they brought with them two unelected full-time officers. Between them they attempted to influence the decision-making of the NSOC.
They cynically argued that motions on the union’s National Campaign were factually incorrect and should be removed, that motions submitted by the union’s NEC should be placed in different sections, and that some motions – e.g. the allocation of full-time officer resource and union support for victimised reps – should be excluded because they undermined the General Secretary’s powers.
Meeting with the NSOC in this way is a privilege not afforded to branches and therefore shouldn’t be afforded to the NEC either. The NEC has the right to put forward motions (and it does put forward motions) like every other part of the union, the NSOC is elected by members, independent of any other committee or branch in the union and must be allowed to discuss free from pressure and interference.
Not content with having one bite at the cherry, the General Secretary and National President requested another meeting with the NSOC to raise further objections to other motions!
Unfortunately, this won’t come as a surprise to many because the General Secretary when she occupied the position of National President and whilst chairing national conference, was exposed attempting to orchestrate a filibuster to stop motions being debated – funnily enough these were also motions on trans rights.
We consider it important to expose these attempts to manipulate and undermine a conference agenda which includes motions the union’s leadership does not want tabled, debated or agreed. We also believe it important to report that on 22 April, each member of the NSOC received a letter from the General Secretary, in which she states that the NSOC deserves respect in light of the difficult task we have and that branches were going to be reminded to “respect the union’s legal obligations, its rules, its procedures, and its democracy””. We consider this an act of hypocrisy given the events reported above and we think the General Secretary should heed her own advice.
We believe the NSOC should prepare and publish the conference agenda without interference from the leadership or branches in advance of the requirements set out in Rules A14 to A16. There is a published timetable which enables any branch to meet with the NSOC, after the (proposed) Conference motions and order of business (SOC 1) is published. It is at that point meetings with branch delegates can take place to argue for changes with a final recourse to conference itself via a ‘reference back’
We have argued consistently that the issues which have come directly from our membership should be given priority. These are the issues which impact on their working lives and given the political and industrial situation it is crucial they are published and heard. It is increasingly evident that the Left Unity/Democracy Alliance union leadership will resort to undemocratic practices to ensure these issues are not given the prominence they deserve.
We urge you to support motions on the agenda to amend supplementary rule 6.22g, use your vote in the national elections and block vote elections and elect candidates that are determined to fight for the interests of members.
Zakk Brown
Craig Worswick
National Standing Orders Committee
PCS Broad Left Network 