Witness Statement

The following statement is provided for the purpose of the Employment Tribunal that is sitting to consider the case of David Beaumont v Amicus (MSF section). That I should be asked to provide a statement is a function of the fact that I have carried out research on the implications of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs), most notably the internet and world wide web, for trade unionism, an area of inquiry that continues to be at the centre of my research. This work has led to the production of a number of jointly authored academic conference papers, articles and chapters. Included within this body of research outputs are two conference papers and a book chapter that look at the significance of the work carried out by David Beaumont.

It is my understanding that Mr Beaumont was expelled from his union (Amicus-MSF section) because of his authorship of two web sites rogerlyons.com and lyonsweb.com. A detailed rationale for the condemnation of Mr Beaumont’s web activity by his union has not been made available to me. It is my understanding that no such document has been made available to Mr Beaumont or released into the public domain. However, section 22 of the Report of the Amicus MSF Section Disciplinary Panel meeting held on 21 February 2002, concerning Mr David Beaumont, states that,

“After much deliberation the Panel unanimously agreed that Mr Beaumont's actions in relation to his web pages were designed to be detrimental to the union. Several breaches of rule were involved. Viewed over a period of time when the complaints occurred there was a pattern to the web that was intentionally designed to denigrate the union and its senior lay officials and officers beyond the realms of reasonable comment. The Panel noted that there is ample provision within the union through Branches, Regional Councils and Annual Conference, and elsewhere, for an individual member to raise matters they are concerned about.”

As such, it is apparent that Amicus-MSF has acquired the distinction of being the first union, to my knowledge at least, of expelling a member from its ranks for using ICTs to challenge its leadership, in a manner that does not fit with their vision of acceptable behaviour. Although the decision to expel has been revoked, the application of punishment is indicative that the use of the internet to raise concerns about union governance is a perilous endeavour. Hence, the decision of the Employment Tribunal on this matter may constitute a very important signal to both members of Amicus-MSF and other trade unionists who may consider using ICTs to participate in union affairs.

The significance of Mr Beaumont’s work is hard to measure with precision. However, there is little doubt that it is important. It has already received coverage in local and national press, it has been featured in protests organised and reported at the TUC conference in 2000, and has received a remarkably high number of visits. It has even been reported that MSF have instructed lawyers to take action to close down the site, illustrating the significance of the threat that the site is seen to pose. Furthermore, in addition to the work of myself and Dr Greene of the University of Warwick, the rogerlyons.com site has been cited in a recent article for the British Journal of Industrial Relations by the eminent Industrial Relations academic, Professor Richard Freeman, of Harvard and the London School of Economics.

The key features of ICT are that it facilitates communication to occur rapidly, at low and distributed cost. It can attenuate the time-space poverty of participants by allowing for asynchronous communicative exchanges and bring together those separated by distance. What is more, the flow of information is now much harder to retain within institutional boundaries. The communicative possibilities are for more extensive interaction, greater density of communication, sharper visibility and higher levels of transparency.

The implications for trade unionism are profound. Within the realm of union governance, any tendencies towards oligarchy (sustained by control over the flow of information, access to superior knowledge, skill in the art of politics and a membership diverted by the pulls of work, family and leisure) are challenged by the distributed discourse that lies at the heart of organizing in the information age. Through the appropriate use of ICTs one can begin to envisage the possibility for greater equality of knowledge, distributed control over the means of communication, the enhanced communicative skills of more ordinary union members and a reconfiguration of the time-space dimension of communicative practice.

Of course, it would be naïve to believe that such prospects are to unfold without resistance. However, as much of the recent literature on union renewal indicates, if unions are to build a sustainable recovery there are strong grounds for holding to the view that greater membership participation and control are crucial. In addition, it should not be forgotten that an effective system of employment relations relies upon unions being able to speak as collective voices, derived from a legitimacy borne out of membership respect for those that speak on their behalf. This respect needs to be earned and renewed. It cannot be assumed or taken for granted. The contention here is that a unionism that attempts to stifle the use of the technologies that offer the prospect for greater participation and accountability is one that abandons an increasingly important means of building sustainable recovery.

In practically ever respect the work of Mr Beaumont is suggestive of the democratising potential of ICT use. As my work with Dr Greene has concluded,

The significance of the debate around this site is that it clearly links into our previous discussions regarding union democracy, voicing of interests and mobilisation of collective action. Arguments about oligarchy have focused on the way that information can become the exclusive property of a small group of ‘elite’ union officials at the apex of the union hierarchy. The www.rogerlyons.com web site challenges this exclusivity, in a context where there appear to have been official efforts to prevent the disclosure of information and to clamp down on discussion. The web site provides a space for the voicing of grievances and the creative manipulation and presentation of information, which allow people to make up their own minds about the events occurring within their own union domain. It also allows particular events and issues to be linked to wider concerns and interest groups. It demonstrates clearly the way in which ICTs can more easily facilitate the two-way interaction processes within the union hierarchy, with ordinary members and lay activists finding the spaces to make their opinions and views heard amongst a wider audience, cheaply and very quickly.

The documents reproduced on the website are not ordinarily and easily available to the lay member. While some clandestine circulation obviously would, and did occur, this web site places the material within easy access of a much wider audience. We can therefore reiterate our arguments that the proximity of union members to local, regional, national and international on-line trade union resources, through ICTs, increases the transparency of the behaviour of union officials to the union membership and enables an independent assessment of performance of officials, in a manner that was never previously possible. In addition, through a well constructed archive, lay members can trace and track through the unfolding of events; assessing the activities of the leadership over time, and preventing external agencies from breaking their history by disrupting the social relationships which constitute union solidarity. It is as repositories of collective memory that unions can give shape to conceptions of the past, present and future and in doing so construct sustainable worker identity.

However, it is clear that there are uses of ICTs that are problematic. A major problem that is faced is when the ICTs are used to provide voices for those who wish to engage in defamatory and nihilistic pursuits, while all the while escaping accountability through anonymity. Such practices are inherently dangerous for the medium of communication, as claims of authenticity are diminished when we cannot see the author. After all, authentication is central to our conception of justice. Quite rightly, the Employment Tribunal hearing this case would not permit the provision of anonymous testimonies. Likewise, in the trade union context, the need to apportion responsibility is crucial for building trust. If relations of trust are destroyed then one of the basic foundation stones of solidarity is removed.

These charges cannot be levelled against Mr Beaumont. He states on his web sites that his aim is to promote greater leadership accountability in his union. What is more he clearly takes responsibility for the site, making no effort to conceal his identity. That this is so can be demonstrated through a visit to his sites, but also by the fact that the union were able to identify him for disciplinary purposes. The union’s leadership might do well to contemplate this fact. Without wishing to pass judgement, it is nevertheless apparent that if it becomes standard practice to use disciplinary mechanisms to punish web authors, then the union may inadvertently drive dissent underground. As such, web activists may operate behind the cloak of anonymity, from where some may be inclined to propagate disinformation and defamation, without fear of having to take responsibility. If this was to become generalised, it is not difficult to imagine how the hope entertained for the revitalising potential of union use of ICTs could quickly become shattered as possible participants turn away from a space saturated with ranting and malice, in which incoherence prevails over communicative promise.

John Hogan

Further Reading