Thank you for posting my blog and allowing your readers to know a little more about me. I hope to contribute regularly during this election process and if successful I will continue to contribute to the wider debate that your blog seems to stimulate. This is something I have done previously and I would plan to continue to engage with members on unofficial forums as I believe any leadership role creates the need to engage with opinion and with debate which in turns leads to healthy membership and a clear direction from the elected leader.
I have now been properly signposted to your blog and have had chance to catch up on some of the comments and entries which I will respond to within this post. I note that many of the comments centre around my past and my job role rather than what my aims and objectives are for taking Napo forward I will respond to these comments first and then future contributions will focus on what my priorities going forward will be if successful.
Firstly I see much has been made of my battle with the POA via the Certification Officer, much of what I have read is wholly inaccurate and I would urge any member that is unsure to read the decision of the Certification Officer in full for themselves. Whilst I would prefer to talk and plan for the future I realise it is important to Napo members to understand my past and my Trade Union Credentials. It is not my intention to get drawn into personality battles more to allow people to know what kind of person I am and what I can offer Napo members in terms of commitment, energy and enthusiasm. But as the query has been raised I cannot avoid giving the contextual detail.
In May 2017 I was selected as the Parliamentary Candidate in the General Election for my local constituency, as a Civil Servant I had to resign from my role as a Prison Officer due to the guidance which prevents those employed by the state from taking political sides. As a consequence I ceased to be a member of the NEC of the POA. I think it is important to additionally note that I believed my candidature in the General Election for the Labour party, which was supporting a manifesto recognised to achieve the political aims and objectives of the POA, would further enhance the standing of the POA in the political arena not weaken it.
The POA rules and constitution has clear rules on ceasing to be a member of the POA NEC and when I wrote to the NEC in May 2017 I set out these rules and the consequences of my resignation from the Civil Service. I have a text still to this date from the POA GS stating that he believed I did not need to resign.
Following the election campaign in June 2017 and on my return to HMP Elmley as a Prison Officer I was informed that the POA GS was informing members that I was banned from standing for Office for 9 years until 2026. I immediately wrote to the NEC to clarify their position. In a response the GS told me that I was banned from standing for Office. I knew that this was clearly a case of discrimination against me as both the General Secretary and one of the Assistant Secretaries had both stood for elected seats in 2015. The GS stood for Labour (same as me) and the AS for TUSC. There are no rules within the POA that prevented any member from standing for political positions of their choice. I requested that the POA reconsidered their position but they refused my request and offered me no avenue of appeal. I also discovered that the POA NEC had taken steps to cancel my membership and I immediately restarted my membership.
At this point I think it is important that I give some context to the type of person I am. I have and will never allow anyone to bully or intimidate me, many have tried but none have been successful. From before I took the Chair position I had been subjected to attempts to bully and intimidate me from an individual by denigration and undermining my work for members usually by email, again I still have copies. I had faced each of these attempts to bully me head on and I believed that I had sufficiently prevented that individual from attempting to do so ever again, however I was wrong. Whilst I will not name any individuals in this post it will not be hard for Napo members to work out for themselves who I am referring to and should they wish to read the endorsements under Ian’s election statement then they can confirm for themselves who clearly wants to ensure that I fail in this election.
As there was no avenue of appeal for me I was left with two choices, let this individual get away with not treating me fairly and accept a ban for 9 years or take my complaint to the Certification Officer. A weaker person may have chosen the former as I realised that this would most certainly up the ante, but I could not allow a person I have known to be a purveyor of mistruths time and time again to treat me or anyone else in such a way. The choice was a simple one for me and although there has been much stress and aggravation I have seen this issue through to ensure parity and fairness for the future of POA members.
Between me challenging the NEC decision and taking my complaint to the Certification Officer I was subjected to public insults and derogatory comments from the same individual that sought to bully me. Additionally when it became apparent that they might not win on imposing a ban for 9 years they tried to say that I was banned for 5 years as a lapsed member instead. This latter 5 year ban argument was withdrawn and as a consequence I was able to withdraw two further complaints on the day of the Certification Officers hearing in London.
I will add that I have not taken any legal action against the POA, I have challenged an unfair decision they made against me at nil cost to anyone. The POA could have defended their decision themselves at nil cost to POA members but instead they employed a team of Solicitors from Thompsons and additionally Senior Counsel from Deveraux Chambers to defend their decision. Regardless of the odds being stacked against me I defended myself in front of the Certification Officer and won. The POA as a result were ordered to lift the ban and allow me to stand for National Office, and it was proved that they breached their own rules.
For reference I could have taken the POA to employment tribunal, I could have sought compensation for the unfair dismissal, I could have sought damages for the degrading and inappropriate way that I was talked about and attacked but I just wanted to ensure that anyone in future would be treated fairly and in line with the rules of the Union. Equality and ensuring that individuals are not subjected to discrimination, victimisation or harassment are issues that are very important to me as is being fair to all.
I note that some have suggested that due to this battle a return to the POA would be impossible for me. I would urge anyone who believes that to add me as a friend via Facebook and read the many disappointed messages from POA members following the news that I have chosen to stand for Napo GS. I would make it clear that returning to the POA NEC would be a well supported and an easy choice for me to make, and that I have had a large number of Branches offering to nominate me should I decide to stand for a POA elected post in future. I can say unequivocally that I am standing for the Napo GS role because it is a role I am genuinely interested in and one that I believe I can bring a lot of drive; enthusiasm and unity to should members decide to elect me.
In seeking appointment whilst you can never 100% give clear assurances on your future, my intention would be to see out the role for the period I am elected if successful. Similarly I am not looking to further my future political aims and I am not applying for this role for financial reasons. I genuinely see major issues within Napo, issues that I believe I could provide strong and united leadership and defiance against.
I have learnt many crucial things from my Trade Union work in the last 10 years, two key things that stand out are that personalities are key to leadership, direction and success and that you have to fight for everything that you want. There is no easy route to solving the problems that Napo members face and if successfully elected as your next General Secretary I will need your support, unity and understanding in order to drive those issues forward for which you most desire.
The position of Napo is not dissimilar to that of the POA when I took over as an area rep, defeatism, apathy and people suggesting that there was no fight left, however I already know how passionate you all are and how important it is that your profession is given the credence and respect that it deserves. Being in a trade union is about sticking together, fighting issues that sometimes only affect a minority, other times fighting issues that affect the majority, whatever the issue I will want to ensure that Napo members help each other and not just themselves and this will be my first issue to get to grips with.
I have read comments about me being the preferred option for Spurr and Crozier to have in discussion, this did make me chuckle, should you wish to do your homework on me you will realise that my relationship with Senior Leaders within HMPPS is not one of cosy cups of teas and biscuits, in fact during the protest action the POA took in 2016 I called Spurr, Copple and the SOS Liz Truss liars both via online video and latterly live on Channel 4 news. Calling them out for misleading parliament and naming me in the House of Commons as part of their lies led to a Government E-petition to investigate Liz Truss’s claims and Spurr and Copple spent many meetings arguing with me to try and retract my statement which I refused to do. I similarly told Liz Truss, whilst Spurr and Copple were present, that she had been misled by the incompetent leaders within HMPPS.
In seeking election I note that many are concerned that a Prison Officer may end up leading your Union. Let me say this, to underestimate me and my ability to lead a trade union is your own choice and you will be able to make your own decision in this election. Yes I will have many flaws and weaknesses, but one thing that I know about myself is that I will give this role my absolute all, that I do not understand defeat and that I am dogged and determined in the face of adversity. It will be your choice who you elect to the role of General Secretary and I will accept that decision regardless of the outcome as if unsuccessful I will continue to support Napo, its aims and objectives and retain my associate membership.
If you select me as your next General Secretary you will be electing an experienced Trade Union Activist and seasoned campaigner, you will not be electing a Prison Officer with a narrow view of the Criminal Justice Sector you will be electing someone that will go out of their way to listen to and understand members every concerns, someone who believes in Socialism but is not afraid to make tough decisions and be forthright when the situation dictates. You will be electing someone that will once fully up to speed take on your issues as if they were my own and use all and every means available to me to try and achieve the desired outcome.
Kind Regards
Mike Rolfe
There is something refreshing about these responses. He is not afraid to stand his ground. I think he would raise the profile of Napo in the media. He can speak from experience of actually working in the criminal justice system
ReplyDeleteHe's not afraid to assert his principles and fight for them. More of the same, or time for a change of leadership?
I agree. This is impressive. This man has balls! Unlike other candidates.
ReplyDeleteCHANGE
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, for what seems like eagerness, openness and honesty I’m beginning to like him! Experience can be gained on the job!
ReplyDelete“I called Spurr, Copple and the SOS Liz Truss liars both via online video and latterly live on Channel 4 news.”
ReplyDelete... something IL has failed to do!
"New Probation Institute to drive expertise
ReplyDeleteA pioneering new organisation delivering professional expertise and promoting skills for those working to drive down reoffending in the community is to be set up, Chris Grayling has announced today."(Published 3 December 2013)
Any thoughts about the PI, Mr Rolfe?
Mr Lawrence is clearly pleased with them:
"Firstly, many thanks to the Co-Hosts in the form of the NPS and the Probation Institute for this opportunity and can I say how appreciative I am of the important work carried out by the Institute in what are incredibly testing times for anyone delivering Probation services in a Criminal Justice System that itself is beset by a number of major challenges." (21 May 2018)
I struggle to see evidence that the PI have done anything at all, other than to passively endorse Grayling's TR & provide incomes for a select few.
In the absence of anything from IL himself...
ReplyDeleteIan Lawrence, 30/12/3013 (https://www.lccsa.org.uk/interview-with-ian-lawrence/)
Q: Have you compromised on anything?
A: I think we at NAPO and the other trade unions have worked hard to try and secure the best possible protections for our members in the event that this becomes enacted. We've demanded protection in terms of continuity of service, membership of the local government pension scheme and pay protection. We've also demanded that any prospective bidder must have clean corporation tax and VAT records and a good employment track record.
There was a letter to the unions from the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, Michael Spurr, which would have formed the basis of maybe reaching a substantive agreement on staffing but, at the 11th hour, the Ministry of Justice introduced a whole range of demands and effectively pulled back from some agreements we had reached.
Q: Tell me something about NAPO.
A: We represent about 8,000 members in the probation service in England and Wales and about 6,500 members in the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. We currently have 35 NAPO branches allied to the existing probation trusts so we would certainly need to review that if the CRCs are created. We are quite advanced in our planning and confident we can continue to represent our members in any scenario. Indeed, we have secured an additional 240 members since last month.
The probation service was founded, 106 years ago, as "Christian missionaries to the courts? and probation officers still are the servants of the courts. I would be interested to know what LCCSA members feel about the impact there will be on the courts when our service is pretty much decimated. Think about the number of times that magistrates call on probation officers ? who are expected to be available at very short notice. Now, that won?t be possible when there is a National Probation Service because it will be too thinly spread. What about the availability of sentencing options? Will those options be as safe as they once were?
The following was from “Communique 1108” issued in May 2013 by the amusingly titled “Popular Front for the Liberation of CPSA” [A satirical site covering news and developments within the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS). The Civil and Public Services Association was a predecessor union of the PCS].
ReplyDelete“So Bibi then HUGH LANNING*. The old fraud who took an early Bath earlier in the year when the UNITE merger talks fell through (PFL passim) has now applied for the top job in NAPO, the union that represents probation officers. While the globe-trotting old lush knows fuck all about the probation service he’s got decades of experience in making the most of what little talent he possesses to climb further up the greasy pole. While HUGO is, of course, just in it for the money he is, on this occasion, part of a much bigger game.
The NAPO General Secretaryship became vacant in February when the incumbent was paid off following a sordid ET complaint by another NAPO officer. His post was temporarily filled by his deputy, IAN LAWRENCE, late of our union and backed by the NAPO’s right-wing. Lacking a suitable candidate from their own ranks NAPO’s left faction has turned to LANNING to try and block LAWRENCE. He has the backing of SERWOTKA. But HUGO has never won an election in his life apart from his last one, when he was the only candidate. Even then, there was a re-count. It will interesting to see how he fares now that he’s got a real fight on his hands. The smart money hasn’t yet made its mind up”
* Hugh Lanning was the Deputy General Secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), one of Britain's largest trade unions, until May 2013.
Could someone remind us please, the outcome of this election above?
DeleteHow many votes cast for Ian Lawrence, and how many for Hugh Lanning?
A question from an earlier blogpost:-
ReplyDeleteHi Mike
A question that is on the lips of many NAPO members. Will you be supporting members who have claims they want to take to Employment Tribunal where they have a reasonable chance of success? There is a widely held belief that the current national officials refuse to take all ETs regardless.
And the answer:-
I am obviously not aware of the history surrounding ET claims and why there is a perception that they are not supported. Obviously the NAPO NEC have to make difficult decisions at times and I would not want to set myself up by making a promise that I cannot deliver, however if successful it is an issue I would be prepared to look at fully to support those members who believe more could be done and try and find a solution.
From my perspective we should always support cases where there is a good prospect of success, similarly I believe we should support cases where it is a point of principle in defending the member should they be treated unfairly even when the prospect of success is weak.
I recognise that decisions are sometimes taken in a wider financial context but I believe if we ‘scrimp and save’ on member representation then of course members will feel unsupported and consider leaving the union. This is not the message that I would want for NAPO members but we must always be honest about the financial position and if necessary take steps to ensure that the level of service that members expect is affordable and prioritised, and where it is not affordable we talk to members about what they place most emphasis on or how we could change things to pay for the services they want.
Regards
Mike
I am starting to lean in favour of voting for Mike Rolfe for a number of reasons.
DeleteFirstly, he talks the language of trades unionism and recognises that we are not ,’ all in it together,” - it is a war and we need to start winning some of the minor skirmishes.
Secondly, he is not afraid to use the ‘S’ word despite it being erased from the lexicon by successive leaders of the Labour Party.
Thirdly, and most importantly, in a two horse race, we have already established the pedigree of one of the runners and it leaves much to be desired from the climb down after being called out by Grayling to the various tub thumping and blood curdling pronouncements he has made more recently to no good end.
IL is like the world heavyweight boxing champion fighting in his own back yard. It is his to lose and he should be far and away the front runner but just hasn’t got it for me.
On a word of caution, MR appears to have outstanding issues with sections of the POA. Whilst I love a good public scrap as much as anyone, this should not impact upon relations between the two unions. remember, there is more that unites us than divides us. Sort it out and put it to bed.
It takes personal courage to take on your union hierarchy, with all their legal advocates and resources, and win your case by dint of your arguments and self-advocacy. This is the type of principled determination that Napo needs to reinvigorate the leadership.
ReplyDeleteFrom Napo Annual Report 2013/14:
ReplyDeleteNational Office Staff Costs 2013
Salaries, Pensions, National Insurance 901,394
Staff Recruitment 10,172
Staff Training 7,891
Staff Expenses 32,922
Total 952,379
General Secretaries 2013
Annual cost of former & new GS = £196,482
145. Transforming Rehabilitation negotiations.
Major negotiations have had to take place with regard to staff transfer arrangements and terms and conditions for staff arising from TR and the service being split. These discussions included reference to arbitration through ACAS. NOMS representatives on the Employers’ side were especially resistant to efforts to incorporate significant protections into the transfer agreement, vital if TUPE was not “technically” being applied and also to facilitate future staff movement between CRCs and the NPS.
146. Eventually an agreement was reached that protected existing recognition and negotiating arrangements,terms and conditions for staff transferred and some significant protections for future starters.
147. Examples include pay protection; continued membership and access to the local government pension scheme for transferees and all staff in the NPS and potentially for new starters in the CRCs post any share sale; contractual access to the terms of the voluntary redundancy agreement including for the length of the contract in
CRCs (although NOMS will only guarantee to fund this for 2014-15); and continuity of service protected for staff moving between the NPS and CRCs, although due to legislative restrictions this couldn’t be achieved for staff who subsequently move post share sale from a CRC into the NPS.
148. No agreement was reached about how staff woul
d be allocated to either the local CRC or NPS.
An assignment process was imposed which gave rise to over 1000 grievances. Cases continue to be
disputed and await either employment tribunals or the newly created Staff Commission.
An exchange from a previous blog:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous25 May 2018 at 07:53
"Solidarity was the choice or divide and conquer. The losses for volunteering was gross. Breaking rank left remainers vulnerable . No solidarity from them when it counted. That seems to be the crux."
Anonymous27 May 2018 at 09:45
"*repeats, louder & slower*
- Not. everyone. is. in. a. union.
- The unions rely on solidarity, but if the unions don't generate a sense of trust, belief or confidence in their members then the membership will walk
Rolfe rightly says "Being in a trade union is about sticking together, fighting issues that sometimes only affect a minority, other times fighting issues that affect the majority, whatever the issue I will want to ensure that Napo members help each other and not just themselves"
Membership needs to have confidence in the GS & his/her abilities or it will fragment & disperse in the vacuum of silence & inaction.
Et, Voila!!!"
Are you an idiot? Unions only represent their members because they pay for it. The discord that you try and inject is that NON MEMBERS have some say. They don't! If they chose to go because they wanted to then so be it. Members who chose to go had some choice in a union backed fight but they went for whatever reasons, those who had to remain or chose to remain are more vulnerable as result of less influence in action that makes a difference. Those that went ultimately are losers across many factors.
DeleteConfidence in a GS is only as good as the memberships ability top manage them. The Current GS has seen Zero employment Tribunals taken in his time. That is an appalling record for any Union.
On the plus for Mr Rolfe whether he has actually taken employment tribunals for his membership or at the least been involved in generating cases. he made a good point cases might lose but should be run. Napo do not support their members to this end. Without any victories or attempts then what are members actually paying for with a GS who refuses to be tested.
Non-members ? They've made their choice then, haven't they? Trouble is they want to have their cake and eat it. Can't be relied on.
Delete09:48 again.
Delete1. "Are you an idiot?" - Don't think so, but who knows?
2. "The discord that you try and inject is that NON MEMBERS have some say. They don't!"
Ah, but they do; & they did. Employers' didn't care if those putting their hands up were union members or not.
So no discord is being sown, just an attempt to address unreasonable vitriol.
The choices of those who were NOT members of a union made a huge difference to the choices of some members, i.e. employers were buoyed by the numbers accepting their offer which left the fight against severance severely compromised. Without strong union leadership or direction this led to members resigning &/or walking because they felt the battle for a fair outcome could not be won.
3. "The Current GS has seen Zero employment Tribunals taken in his time. That is an appalling record for any Union... Without any victories or attempts then what are members actually paying for with a GS who refuses to be tested." - Unquestionably so, hence...
"Membership needs to have confidence in the GS & his/her abilities or it will fragment & disperse in the vacuum of silence & inaction."
The Idiot.x