Speech to London Regional Council

21st September 2002, TUC Congress House, London

"David Beaumont, suspended delegate for Hounslow and Feltham Branch.

Although un-expelled I remain suspended from all office and so I have to speak as a visitor. I will be brief as we do seem to have run out of time. I won't go through the history of my expulsion, most of you know it and it is all on the website. I do want to say a bit about the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, a bit about the deceit and duplicity Ian, my representative, and I received last Saturday, and lastly a bit about what's important in all this.

Firstly then the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act; Section 65 of the Act protects the free speech of members to make assertions about the leadership breaking union rules, as long as the assertions are true or are made in good faith. A member who is unjustifiably disciplined for such acts, as I was, must apply to an Employment Tribunal, which is what I have done. As part of my ET case I had to count up all the assertions I have made on my web sites, it comes to 48 breaches of rule or the law. A large proportion of these breaches are originally asserted by either by the union's own auditors or by the independent Trade Union Certification Officer, so I don't think there's any doubt that they are true or that I made them in good faith.

When you have a union leadership that consistently breaks or ignores it's own rules, they only and inevitably will be stopped by
i) the union's own lay member Appeals court,
ii) the Trade Union Certification Officer, or
iii) the Law.
It so happens they have now reached this point in my case and they have come up against the Law. The General Secretary and the National Executive Committee have 'previous' form in ignoring their own Appeals Court in the case of Louis Mac Donald, until Louis forced them to accept it in the High Court. As Jim Mortimer mentioned earlier, they have paid no attention to the Northern Ireland Certification Officer's ruling of multiple breaches of rule by the General Secretary and the NEC.

I have no doubt that had I not started my ET case I would still be expelled. Don't hesitate to use reactionary laws against a reactionary union leadership.

Now I want to talk about the deceit and duplicity that Ian and I received last Saturday, when we turned up to present my case to the NEC. It started with senior full time officer Alex McKenna telling us the NEC were running late and wouldn't get to my case for at least 1/2 hour. We subsequently discovered that the NEC had heard my case without us, while we were waiting to get to it! The deceit carried on, General Secretary Lyons assured us he would put in writing what the NEC had agreed and what was happening with my suspension, last Tuesday [17th September]. That letter still hasn't arrived [as of 25th September].

Lyons and the new president Dave Trafford wouldn't say anything about my on-going suspension, which is just coming up for it's third anniversary. As you recall the suspension was for London Region trying to enfranchise our members and get Ken Livingstone nominated for London Mayor. Trafford and Lyons seemed to have forgotten all about it.

Despite no letter from Lyons, I did receive a letter from MSF's solicitors on Thursday and I just want to read you a bit:

"the fact that your Appeal has been allowed concludes the internal procedure, so that in fact, no disciplinary action has been taken against you by my clients." [Greeted with laughter by the Regional Council]

So seven months of being expelled doesn't count as disciplinary action! Moreover I made very clear to all the NEC, in writing, that I was not presenting an Appeal to them last Saturday; the rule book is clear, Appeals to the NEC are meant to be heard before the expulsion. Any Appeal after that must go to a lay member Appeals Court. Anyway all I was going to do was to tell the NEC what I thought of them.

It's duplicitous to maintain that that 'my appeal has been upheld' - it wasn't an appeal and I didn't get to put my case. I notice something is missing in the the NEC report-back we have but it is in Dave Houliston's Southern region one, I'll read it out:

"9. David Beaumont Appeal:
Following legal advice in respect of the above, the NEC re-affirmed its previous position that the correct factual decision was taken concerning Mr Beaumont and that the allegations made against him were proper. However the NEC also recognised that in respect of the Employment Tribunal lodged by the Appellant under the Tories 1992 Employment legislation, advice has confirmed that in these specific circumstances, determination of the truth of the allegations made by an individual such as Mr Beaumont is only partially relevant to the test which will be applied by an Employment Tribunal. On that basis, the NEC agreed to withdraw his expulsion from the union on appeal"

So in summary, according to the NEC, I'm re-instated but the reasons for my expulsion were true, they deny they breached the TULR Act and they maintain that I was re-instated because of my Appeal which has never been heard!

[At this point the Region President indicates David should come to a close]

Lastly I want to cover what's important in all this. Firstly though, thanks to this Regional Council in general, and too many people in particular to mention, for all your support. The Right in the union have always argued that members shouldn't waste time discussing disciplinary matters or union internal structures and issues. I noticed this at my first Annual Conference, the Right would heckle people speaking against the Standing Orders Committee which had ruled such issues out-of-order. the Right would heckle people raising points of order or trying to get motions on internal matters discussed. The Right would always argue that there were much more important industrial issues to discuss.

This all makes sense to me, I understand the Right's attitude; they control the top of our union, they organise the witch hunts, it's clear to me why they don't want these matters discussed. In fact they keep them off the agenda so well that sometimes they even forget themselves they have witch hunts going on!

So all that makes sense, but what's very puzzling to me is that some on the very left of our union seem to think the same way. It's great to concentrate on industrial issues, on PFI, health and safety, on the non-profit sector. I approve of all of that. But it just seems obvious to me that all that effort can be wasted if a small right wing, corrupt, clique is permitted to control the top of our union, to ignore union policy in press releases, at the TUC and Labour Party Conferences, and then to discipline or threaten to discipline members (even the few Left NEC members) who speak out.

If you ignore internal issues, you allow the NEC to get away with, for example, banning publication of the President's speech (I still can't get over the arrogance and ignorance of that act). You allow them to refuse to even print let alone discuss or approve motions from regions that have gone through lengthy democratic procedures involving hundreds of lay members. You allow them to suspend London's left NEC representative the day after she topped the ballot in the NEC regional elections.

This union is being run like a corporation, disciplining and firing members as if they were employees, forcing them to go to Employment Tribunals to get justice. Meanwhile the union host lavish birthday parties for its Chief Executive and suppress democracy and dissent with their witch hunts.

Members and potential members don't want a corporate union, selling them credit cards and financial services, they want an open, honest and listening union that represents them and reflects their views. And I don't mean reflects what the executive interpret the silent majority to want, I mean the members' views as expressed through active lay democratic structures like this region. These structures need to be encouraged, not threatened or suppressed with witch hunts.

Thank you."

Coming soon: The speech/'Appeal' that the NEC didn't want to hear. A sample quote from the introduction:

"I'm not going to waste your time or mine in pleading for my expulsion to be commuted to a 5 year suspension. I am going to tell you what it looks like from my position, from my point of view, and if you're not the corrupt bunch of wasters I think most of you are, you'll find this useful...."

Posted by www.rogerlyons.com on 25th September 2002