AMICUS RULES – MSF JEC MEMBERS’ ISSUES AND

THE RESPONSES FROM THE RULES COMMISSION MEETING ON 24/04/03

 

 

AGE LIMITS

·        Rule 6(5) – eligibility to hold lay office.

·        Rule 25(7) – candidate for NEC.

 

MSF position: change restrictions based on age for lay members’ eligibility to whether member is working.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: consensus in Rules Commission meeting was to leave current draft as it is.

 

 

WORKPLACE REPRESENTATIVE

·        Rule 10(1) – workplace representative elections.

 

MSF position: needs to be clear that a workplace representative’s position is not dependent on accreditation by employer.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: Agreed – sentence of clarification to be added.

 

 

CRAFT

·        Rule 13

 

MSF position: safeguards for future required.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: AEEU prepared to wholly honour the Instrument, but not prepared to go any further.  The Instrument says the “composition” of the Craft will remain the same as in MSF – not “powers”.  Therefore AEEU view is that Craft members will only be able to participate in electing delegates and agreeing motions to Policy Conference in their industrial sector.

The AEEU were prepared to discuss the Craft Sector being set up as an industrial sector (therefore the Craft would be able to elect delegates to Policy Conference etc – but would not be able to participate in other industrial sectors) and so would have a guaranteed NEC seat and therefore lose the possibility for four observers.  However this option was not pursued as the Craft sector leadership did not wish to.

Again, no consensus for change was reached in the meeting.

 

 

BRANCH RULES

·        Rule 19(4) – can only change frequency or time or place of meetings with Regional Council approval.

·        Rule 19(5) – need permission of NEC for special branch meeting.

 

MSF position: change approval/permission to notification.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: On the second point, it was agreed to change NEC permission to Regional Council permission.

On both points, it was agreed that a rule allowing for the approval to be delegated to Regional Council lay officials will be included – this will mean that branches don’t have to wait for a full meeting of the Regional Council to be able to make their branch arrangements.

 

·        Rule 19(13) – branches get 3% of subs. Of this one-third would be paid quarterly and the rest available through imprest system.

 

MSF position: branches to get 5% of subs, not through imprest system, with cap on amounts held by branches.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for a change from 3%.  However it was agreed that all of the 3% would be paid to branches in quarterly instalments with a need to account for spending at the end of the year.  This means there would be no imprest system.  If a branch was entitled to £1000 per year and at the end of the year had only spent £500, it would only get £500 the following year.

 

 

REGIONAL BRANCH CONFERENCE

·        Rule 20 – delegates from each branch attend regional branch conference to elect delegates to policy conference and regional councils.

 

MSF position: Regional Councils to group branches – grouped branches then elect delegates.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for change.  A strong argument for the current draft was that as there are more MSF branches than AEEU branches there would be more MSF branch delegates at the regional branch conferences than AEEU delegates (even allowing for extra delegates for bigger branches).  In addition, the grouping of branches would have to be done on a very large scale – as each region would on average only be electing 17 delegates to the Policy Conference.  This would mean grouping many branches with thousands of members.

 

 

REGIONAL SECRETARY

·        Rule 21(12) – Regional Secretary.

 

MSF position: Role of Regional Secretary needs further clarification.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for change.  Members were reminded of the compromise that there would be lay chairs and full time officers as secretaries (this in contrast to the AEEU’s initial position of FTO chairs) and the Commission did not wish to reopen this debate.

 

 

NEC ELECTIONS

·        Rule 25(6) – NEC elections held at the same time, every time.

 

MSF position: introduce staggered elections for future.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for change.  The Instrument states that the rules of the Union have to allow for “NEC members elected by concurrent terms” and so the first rules can not have a provision for staggered elections.  However there is no reason why this could not be introduced at the first Rules Conference (2005).

 

 

NOMINATIONS

·        Rule 25(9) – nominations for women’s seats

 

MSF position: these are national seats so nominations should be from 5 branches (from 3 different regions) and from 5 reps.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for change.

 

·        Rule 26(9) – workplace representative can make nominations in GS election.

·        Rule 29(7) – workplace representative can make nominations in NEC elections (not in regional seats though – that’s branches).

 

MSF position: workplace representatives have to hold meeting of members before making a nomination (effectively, nomination is then from workplace group).

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: Agreed – wording to be produced to make sure that reps have held a properly constituted meeting of members before making a nomination.

 

 

GENERAL SECRETARY

·        Rule 26(9) – member needs 5 years membership of union to stand for GS.

 

MSF position: change to ten years.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: Agreed

 

·        Rule 26(9) – candidate must be 60 or younger to stand for GS.

 

MSF position: delete reference to an age qualification for candidates.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for change.

 

 

MSF position: additional wording required covering MSF rule 47(b)&(c) – NEC to determine duties of FTOs and discipline of FTOs.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No consensus in meeting for including discipline of FTOs – this is covered by contracts of employment.

Wording of General Secretary rule amended to reflect the wording of the Instrument, where the GS is under the control of the NEC.

 

 

DEPUTY GENERAL SECRETARY

·        Rule 27

 

MSF position: delete  – no need for separate rule for DGS (include 27(1) at end of 28(3).

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for change.

 

 

IRELAND

·        Rule 33 – voting system.

 

MSF position: method for elections, ie PR, to be specific.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for change but agreed to refer all of Ireland rules to Irish Rules Working Group for comments.

 

 

POLITICAL ORGANISATION

·        Rule 36 (2-6) – structure of political organisation.

 

MSF position: the industrial structure should be involved in the political structure.

 

Outcome at Rules Commission: No agreement in meeting for change.  However members were fairly positive about the possibility of each industrial sector electing a member (who would have to be a Labour Party member) on to the National Political Committee.

 

 

NOTE:  Although the word agreement is used in several places to describe the position of the Rules Commission, it should be understood that this does not mean unanimity.  Many of the “agreements” on the rules were reached by consensus.  No vote was taken throughout the proceedings of the Rules Commission.