Political Fund Vs Legal Fund

[fishtank]

As members may be aware the coalition government has launched an attack on workers through the application of fees for the Employment Tribunal process.

From LTB 244/2013

introduction of application fees which will be payable by the applicant when submitting their ET1 form. These range from £160 to £250 depending on the nature of the tribunal application.

There are additional fees payable if the tribunal proceeds to a full hearing which range from £230 to £950 again depending on the type of claim, under the current proposals it will cost an applicant £1200 to run an unfair dismissal case excluding any legal representation costs.

Applicants also face the prospect of having cost orders made against them if they lose their case, or run non meritorious claims, these have been increased from £10K to £20K

The introduction of a fee structure will have a significant impact on the union's ability to provide assistance to our members with Employment Tribunal applications.

The financial impact cannot be fully assessed until the government make a final decision on the level of fees that will apply.

If you take 2012 as an example, we received 529 ET applications (529 x 250 = £ 132,250 - application fee). If all 529 applications went to a full hearing (529 x 950 = £502,550 hearing fees) producing a potential financial liability of £132,250 + £502,550= £ 634,800

At the moment the union has a policy that it will support members it judges to have a better than 50% chance of success,whether you agree with that or not this has to be maintained as a minimum position but given the extra liability involved this will probably come under attack.

The Political fund levy was increased from 10p to 20p last year.
This has resulted,rather strangely in a Political Fund surplus of £786,705,almost exactly the equivalent of the rise in the levy.

It is my opinion that this money would be far better put to use in building a legal fund to support our members through the Employment Tribunal process and at the same time protect and possibly enhance the 50% success decision line.

I basically think that the Political Levy should be returned to 10p and a new Legal Levy of 10p should be initiated.
Who is with me?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

[P13]

I'm with you but the CWU are a bit like Royal Mail neither do common sense

[Glenno]

[AnotherLimey]

Always with you Fish

[cliffeyhez]

Sounds good to me

[Martin Walsh]

The union is not allowed legally to use the funds in the politcal fund for such purposes as funding tribunals.

[fishtank]

The union is not allowed legally to use the funds in the politcal fund for such purposes as funding tribunals.

It wouldn't be in the political fund.
Increasing the political fund to 20p appears by the accounts to have been unnecessary.
I'm talking about reducing the political levy back down to 10p and starting an entirely separate 10p legal fund.

[P13]

The union is not allowed legally to use the funds in the politcal fund for such purposes as funding tribunals.

What are the union doing with the money ?

[General Mannerheim]

The union is not allowed legally to use the funds in the politcal fund for such purposes as funding tribunals.

It wouldn't be in the political fund.
Increasing the political fund to 20p appears by the accounts to have been unnecessary.
I'm talking about reducing the political levy back down to 10p and starting an entirely separate 10p legal fund.

Now now fishy,you can't expect one of the CWU's high bods to actually understand you regarding these matters,it's not like they have not had plenty of time to think about starting a legal fund that might actually help it's members,it's far better to have Ed Balls and Wallace kept in clover.
IMHO the 50% threshold is a load of bolloxs as it's actually far higher.

[Martin Walsh]

The ability for a union to have politcal fund is voted on by members every 5 years. There is a ballot again next year. The general fund cannot be used to oppose priviatisation , oppose unfair competition , oppose such anti worker employment acts such as the introduction of these draconian tribunal laws, the politcal money is also used to support workers aboard like those South African miners who were murdered. Plus supporting woman , disabled workers and promoting equal opportunies. All of this has to come from the political fund. Of course some of the politcal fund goes to Branch's who support labour clps and other local campaigns such as hospital closures.

Fish there is enough money in Branch's to fund the first payment but it is doubtful there is enough to cover the additional cost of the tribunal and it is non refundable. I am not opposed to what you have suggested but I do believe that the union will want to understand the case it is taking on because the personal injury cases are also changing.

[fishtank]

I think we need to decide whether we're a political union or an industrial union.

As it stands the Political Levy drew in £1,663,041 last year and even in the middle of a very political campaign and including Labour affiliation fees of £518,600 we only spent in total £876,336.

I personally cannot see the justification for increasing this spending to over £1.6 million every year on political issues when we can't even afford to defend our members at Employment Tribunals.
Reality check needed.

[fishtank]

Of course the irony is that setting up a Legal Fund to protect our members from the Coalition's attack on the Employment Tribunal system would probably be the biggest political gesture the union has made in years.
It would be like sticking two fingers up at the Tories and showing them that they won't frighten our members away from the ET system to protect their terms and conditions.

It could be a hell of a recruiting tool as well.

[Martin Walsh]

I believe you cannot separate the politcal point from the industrial. Privitsation is a politcal act but has a massive effect industrially the same when Labour introduced competition ahead of the rest of Europe but has has a massive impact on mail centre jobs.

I have no problems with calling for a legal fund. There are two attacks one on tribunals which thankfully a very minority of members experience and the other on personal injury claims which more members experience.

[whisperstar24]

totally agree with your point we should support our membership