WITHDRAWAL OF REPS CREDENTIALS

[lovejoy]

Dear Colleagues,

Rule 14 - Withdrawal of credentials


There have been a number of recent incidents whereby Branches have withdrawn credentials from CWU representatives outwith the terms of Rule 14.


The relevant Rule is 14.3.4 the terms of which are:


A Union Representative accused of being involved in conduct that brings the Union into disrepute may have their credentials or office suspended pending the outcome of the discipline process.


This can be done in two ways:


a) On receipt of a charge a Branch may suspend the individual's credentials or office. This carries the right of appeal to the NDC; or

b) On receipt of a charge, the NDC can suspend the individual's credentials or office.

In relevant circumstances if suspension is deemed appropriate it must be done quickly and Branches are required to consider this option in the relevant circumstances. Suspension of credentials or office can only be done as part of the process involving National Discipline and at no other time.


It is absolutely clear that credentials can only be withdrawn after a charge has been laid against the particular representative. Any enquiries on this subject should be addressed to John Baldwin, Officer to National Discipline Committee at 150 The Broadway, Wimbledon, London SW19 1RX or by e-mail to aniven@cwu.org quoting the above reference.


Yours sincerely


John Baldwin

Officer to NDC

[BELIAL]

Do these rules apply to the GS and others at CWU HQ?

[lovejoy]

Do these rules apply to the GS and others at CWU HQ?

Yeah they apply to all cwu reps and members and anyone can raise a charge! - not always good because people can make things up and leave the accused hanging until the hearings!

I hear the NDC makes the judicial system in Zimbabwe look fair!!!

[BELIAL]

Do these rules apply to the GS and others at CWU HQ?

Yeah they apply to all cwu reps and members and anyone can raise a charge! - not always good because people can make things up and leave the accused hanging until the hearings!

I hear the NDC makes the judicial system in Zimbabwe look fair!!!

You are filling my head with wicked thoughts

Does anyone think acting in contravention of the unions stated primary objective constitutes a breach that warrants disciplinary action?

[andy2007]

Do these rules apply to the GS and others at CWU HQ?

Yeah they apply to all cwu reps and members and anyone can raise a charge! - not always good because people can make things up and leave the accused hanging until the hearings!

I hear the NDC makes the judicial system in Zimbabwe look fair!!!

You are filling my head with wicked thoughts

Does anyone think acting in contravention of the unions stated primary objective constitutes a breach that warrants disciplinary action?

Yes, I do.

[Tman]

You are filling my head with wicked thoughts

Does anyone think acting in contravention of the unions stated primary objective constitutes a breach that warrants disciplinary actionYes, I do.

So, going after union reps and officials, and effectively hobbling the union's activities helps us.................how?
Even if the above were possible, how could you ever prove that the rep's actions WERE a breach and warranted disciplinary action?
Utter bollix, and Leighton and co must rub thier hands together with glee when they see such sentiments expressed.

[BELIAL]

You are filling my head with wicked thoughts

Does anyone think acting in contravention of the unions stated primary objective constitutes a breach that warrants disciplinary actionYes, I do.

So, going after union reps and officials, and effectively hobbling the union's activities helps us.................how?
Even if the above were possible, how could you ever prove that the rep's actions WERE a breach and warranted disciplinary action?
Utter bollix, and Leighton and co must rub thier hands together with glee when they see such sentiments expressed.

RULE 2

OBJECTIVE 1
"TO protect and promote members intersts and to maintain and improve their working lives;"

"Utter bollix" ?
Sorry I did not write the rules but this one seems both clear and reasonable to me.
Fact, nearly 30% of branches have rejected this agreement as an attack on our conditions; Fact many more members in branches recommending or remaining non commital will reject this agreement.
Fact we are now all worse off than we were six months ago.
Most scary Fact, in attempting to sell us the deal our leadership claim the strength of the union is based on local bargaining and local agreement. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought the point of creating a national union was that our effectiveness depended on national collective action. Our leadership has surrendered this principal of collective action, in return for what, £175 that we were owed?
Hobbling the union? Someone beat me to it
As for proof of breach well the questions are clear perhaps it's up to the NDC to investigate and reach a finding.
Leighton rubbing his hands with glee? I think Mr Leighton must be quite happy with our current leadership. His wish list has been achieved, true he will have to wait six months for some of it ,but if you consider it was a five year plan he must be delighted to have pushed it through in one

[andy2007]

I would just like to add however, that far from creating worse problems for the Union by loosing such Senior Reps. It would force the CWU to try to find replacements for them.

I know that there is a shortage of people putting their names forward for these positions, but it is obvious from this Forum, that there are many capable people waiting in the Wings, who just need to be reassured that they have a chance. Not everyone would neccessarily feel that they would be able to win a position in a National Election, even if they would be an ideal Candidate.

[Tman]

OBJECTIVE 1
"TO protect and promote members intersts and to maintain and improve their working lives;"

"Utter bollix" ?
Sorry I did not write the rules but this one seems both clear and reasonable to me.

But it's only your opinion, and reps, quite rightly, would argue that they were working in the member's interests too. How could you "prove" otherwise?

Fact, nearly 30% of branches have rejected this agreement as an attack on our conditions; Fact many more members in branches recommending or remaining non commital will reject this agreement.
Fact we are now all worse off than we were six months ago.
Most scary Fact, in attempting to sell us the deal our leadership claim the strength of the union is based on local bargaining and local agreement. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought the point of creating a national union was that our effectiveness depended on national collective action. Our leadership has surrendered this principal of collective action, in return for what, £175 that we were owed?

Only 30%? By the rule of democracy then, 70% could be for it....?
Anyway, whether you like the deal or not wasn't the point under discussion; my point was attacking the reps etc because you don't like the deal is futile and self-defeating, and can only further weaken the union. Pointless.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Its a self defeating argument. Although we might not be happy with the offer, the Union has fulfilled its mandate in protecting and acting for and promoting members interests by actually holding a ballot so I am afraid any disciplinary process imo would be thrown out at the first hurdle. Just because I don't like the offer does not mean that the union failed in its aims, it just means that they need a kick up the backside and with a NO vote they will get one.

[BELIAL]

OBJECTIVE 1
"TO protect and promote members intersts and to maintain and improve their working lives;"

"Utter bollix" ?
Sorry I did not write the rules but this one seems both clear and reasonable to me.

But it's only your opinion, and reps, quite rightly, would argue that they were working in the member's interests too. How could you "prove" otherwise?

Fact, nearly 30% of branches have rejected this agreement as an attack on our conditions; Fact many more members in branches recommending or remaining non commital will reject this agreement.
Fact we are now all worse off than we were six months ago.
Most scary Fact, in attempting to sell us the deal our leadership claim the strength of the union is based on local bargaining and local agreement. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought the point of creating a national union was that our effectiveness depended on national collective action. Our leadership has surrendered this principal of collective action, in return for what, £175 that we were owed?

Only 30%? By the rule of democracy then, 70% could be for it....?
Anyway, whether you like the deal or not wasn't the point under discussion; my point was attacking the reps etc because you don't like the deal is futile and self-defeating, and can only further weaken the union. Pointless.

I assume that you mean that my belief that our senior officials have acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the membership is "only my opinion". A curious statement given the number and nature of comments on this site alone,not to mention the general opinion in my workplace[not a traditional hotbed of militant revolt]
On the other hand your assertion that our officials could argue "quite rightly" that they had maintained and improved our working lives is merely an opinion, and a perverse one too given the facts: real term pay cut;flex. working up for grabs; longs shorts up for grabs; annualised hours up for grabs;monthly pay up for grabs;-all without the prospect of national action to defeat these attacks.
30% of branches have opposed HQ's recommendation ,unprecedented I think, but not the final vote so lets not get ahead of ourselves by pre judging the outcome and launching a discussion on the nature of democracy.
I do not like the deal, I gain nothing from it but I do lose a lot.

YOUR POINT;
Are you suggesting that our national leaders conduct of this dispute should be above criticism?, if so , I presume you are making this call from a tactical standpoint.
Why do you think the union has been weakened?
Calling for acountabillity of our leadership may indeed be futile given the fact that they are able to broker and recommend a deal that flies in the face of conference decisions, democracy seems to be a very flexible concept.
As for "self defeating" ,two words, "The Agreement"

[BELIAL]

IF the deal was good and I liked it would it still be bad form to criticise our leaderships tactics? Or should we all be supine lemmings and follow the leader whatever?

[Tman]

I assume that you mean that my belief that our senior officials have acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the membership is "only my opinion". A curious statement given the number and nature of comments on this site alone,not to mention the general opinion in my workplace[not a traditional hotbed of militant revolt]

It IS only your opinion; how can it be otherwise? The deal on offer not being as good as you'd maybe hoped for, is a gulf away from the union officials acting in a detrimental manner.

On the other hand your assertion that our officials could argue "quite rightly" that they had maintained and improved our working lives is merely an opinion, and a perverse one too given the facts:

No, the union officials could/would argue they did the best in the circumstances prevailing.

real term pay cut;flex. working up for grabs; longs shorts up for grabs; annualised hours up for grabs;monthly pay up for grabs;-all without the prospect of national action to defeat these attacks.

Welcome to MY world. These things we've had for years,as conditions of various pay deals, and they're pretty common in the real world too.

30% of branches have opposed HQ's recommendation ,unprecedented I think, but not the final vote so lets not get ahead of ourselves by pre judging the outcome and launching a discussion on the nature of democracy.
I do not like the deal, I gain nothing from it but I do lose a lot.

YOUR POINT;
Are you suggesting that our national leaders conduct of this dispute should be above criticism?, if so , I presume you are making this call from a tactical standpoint.

I don't know what a "tactical standpoint" is. Maybe there is criticism due to them, but my point was that the calls for disciplinary procedures to start against them (for reasons as above) was misguided at best and counter-productive at worst.

Why do you think the union has been weakened?

I never said it was. I said taking disciplinary actions against reps and offiicals would weaken the union, and as far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened yet.

[BELIAL]

I assume that you mean that my belief that our senior officials have acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the membership is "only my opinion". A curious statement given the number and nature of comments on this site alone,not to mention the general opinion in my workplace[not a traditional hotbed of militant revolt]

It IS only your opinion; how can it be otherwise? The deal on offer not being as good as you'd maybe hoped for, is a gulf away from the union officials acting in a detrimental manner.

On the other hand your assertion that our officials could argue "quite rightly" that they had maintained and improved our working lives is merely an opinion, and a perverse one too given the facts:

No, the union officials could/would argue they did the best in the circumstances prevailing.

real term pay cut;flex. working up for grabs; longs shorts up for grabs; annualised hours up for grabs;monthly pay up for grabs;-all without the prospect of national action to defeat these attacks.

Welcome to MY world. These things we've had for years,as conditions of various pay deals, and they're pretty common in the real world too.

30% of branches have opposed HQ's recommendation ,unprecedented I think, but not the final vote so lets not get ahead of ourselves by pre judging the outcome and launching a discussion on the nature of democracy.
I do not like the deal, I gain nothing from it but I do lose a lot.

YOUR POINT;
Are you suggesting that our national leaders conduct of this dispute should be above criticism?, if so , I presume you are making this call from a tactical standpoint.

I don't know what a "tactical standpoint" is. Maybe there is criticism due to them, but my point was that the calls for disciplinary procedures to start against them (for reasons as above) was misguided at best and counter-productive at worst.

Why do you think the union has been weakened?

I never said it was. I said taking disciplinary actions against reps and offiicals would weaken the union, and as far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened yet.

A lot to digest, go through it in reverse order if you like.
" and further[/b] weaken the union.Pointless.

You did say it was weakened.
C'mon can't wait to get on to your best bits feet on the ground man

[andy2007]

Another reason to change the rules, a rep can be done but not a SCAB. Whats wrong with that? oh i know a scab will defo vote for the deal but a rep might not. Nice one Billy and Dave!

A Rep can only have his/her CREDENTIALS removed, but they CONTINUE TO BE UNION MEMBERS. Therefore, if (God forbid) a Rep was to scab, he/she could have his/her Credentials removed. But that isn't likley to happen is it?!?

In other words: Reps can be penalised for letting the Union down, but Members can't. I know that sounds unfair. But bear in mind, that Reps are elected to represent our interests. It is a VERY responsible position, therefore they can face disciplinary action.