Making Sense of CO Report

Over the last few days and the AGM weekend, two issues have become intertwined in the discussion thread, namely that of the Certification Officer Report and pay. In the absence of official statements on both, it's hard to untangle fact from fiction, supposition from rumour. I'm sure the issue of pay will become clear eventually, but in the case of the CO Report, I doubt it. 

In view of this I have attempted to bring together in one place what I feel are salient points in relation to the CO Report and in this we are helped by the almost unprecedented situation of having contributions from two named individuals:-   

Barry Adams 4 October 2018 at 20:16

For many members the background and details leading up to a PO member asking the Certification Officer to rule on a course of action taken by the national officers. What is clear from the Certification Officers report is: The named officers breached the Constitution.

What is less clear is:

1. Why did the officers take the course of action that they did.
2. Who advised the officers (wrongly)
3. Were the ÑEC kept fully and in good time informed.
4. What if any involvement did the General Secretary have.

This action has damaged Napo in many ways and has cost Napo members an undisclosed sum of money. Members should ask these and other questions and the only way to get truthful, honest and unbiased answered it to ask at AGM for an investigation by a independent body (national reps panel?) To report directly to the NEC. Any investigation should be conducted with all possible due diligence.

*****
Peter Robinson 5 October 2018 at 13:07

The findings of the Certification Officer in "Peros v Napo" bring into the open a sequence of events that spans three attempts to invoke disciplinary process under s29 of the Napo Constitution. I represented the members under the internal s29 action on the other two.
In each case the officers deviated from the processes set out in s29 of the Constitution and the associated Rules laid down by the NEC. It is clear from the findings of the formal hearing last month that the officers were in serious error.

I don't think the Certification Officer is strictly speaking a "Court" but it would also be inaccurate to describe the hearing as a "meeting". It is a formal hearing by a regulatory body and of sufficient importance for Napo to be represented by a barrister accompanied by a solicitor.

The issue with setting up an irregular investigation first arose in 2015. I believe that this was the first time the process had been invoked in a generation. There were other complications in that matter but it was eventually found that there was "no case to answer". The irregularity was not pursued further but the officers were informed that the Constitution would need to be amended by an AGM if the process were to be varied in the future. No action was taken by the officers or the NEC to propose such amendment to the following AGM in 2016 however.

The action in July 2017 in the Peros case was the second in the sequence and had several contentious aspects. These included an intention to use the same irregular investigation process. In October 2017 a third case was opened with similar procedural issues. Initially an outline agreement was reached with the officers whereby the process would be cancelled on completion of undertakings by the member. Although the member complied with her part of that arrangement the officers opted to persist with the disciplinary process. They did so without addressing the procedural irregularities. In a long history of representing Napo members in employment processes I have reached settlement in more than a few but on no occasion has any employer reneged on an agreement. I was dismayed that my own Union should do so.

In March 2018 the disciplinary process in respect of both Dino Peros and the matter I was involved in were scuttled short of a hearing. This means that no valid disciplinary finding has been returned in either case and the time, energy and expenditure has been lost without useful purpose. I would point out that whilst Napo resources underwrote the waste on the “official side” the members affected and their representatives have to bear their own costs. 

The persistent deviation from clear provisions in the Constitution needed to be challenged. As the Peros matter predated the other case the complaint was made by him through Dave Rogan. A simple duplication by the other member and myself would not have added to the scope of the action but we would have been prepared to take such action on the same grounds if Dino Peros and Dave Rogan had not done so.

The Constitution safeguards the rights of members and forms a central part of the membership contract. Officers are elected to uphold the Constitution and do not have the authority to vary it at will. I do not see the need for further investigation as to possible culpability as the Certification Officer has covered that. I believe that this is the first adverse finding by the Certification Officer in the history of Napo and is a highly significant event. I hope and trust that Napo will have learned from this experience and that there will be no recurrence. The Napo NEC should review the Constitution as there are a number of matters to be addressed. However there should be no deviation without the necessary membership approval at an AGM.

*****
A branch could take a detailed motion to NEC asking for full disclosure of the officers and officials decision chain regarding Dinogate (copyright pending) and how much members money was spent on legal costs. Their answers could then be compared with Dino's version of events and those members who give a shit could then decide what, if anything, to do next. If the new chair and GS are found culpable then a motion of no confidence could follow. It only takes a few members in each branch to put forward and win the argument for NEC reps to be mandated. That is unless the top table find some procedural or confidentially orientated reason to block debate. That's the usual way they do it. If so, then members could make their minds up about that. The thing is, this kind of thing isn't new. IL relies on bluff, bluster and lack of interest amongst the dwindling rank and file to get away with this sort of thing. Oh, and claiming credit for the secret pay deal is the ultimate smoke and mirrors exercise. The MOJ had to modernise pay and would have done so even without union involvement. He just sat on the other side of the table and said thank you. Unless they can tell us what extra concessions they forced from the employers of course.

*****
I rate Jamie. It's a dilemma isn't it? We can wring our hands at the decline in membership, and at some problems that need addressing in its leadership. In order to tackle both, what we need is a call to arms for probation folk to sign up and join. And this will not be helped by public agonising about internal problems. By and large the latter is of interest only to the anoraks, who can then mobilise the members who are motivated to do so, to make some changes. 

Lest we forget, the problems besetting the Union are as much to do with the fucking Tory government getting rid of sign-off and doing everything in their power to undermine the effectiveness of Unions. An issue for more than this one Union. The problems of Probation: privatised, hacked about, underpaid, are also down to this government. Harking back to Halcyon days of Probation and the Union is a bit of a bore frankly.

*****
Peter Robinson 10 October 2018 at 10:07

It would be a mistake for members to dismiss concerns about the Constitution and rules as "of interest only to anoraks". The Constitution is the democratically determined wish of the membership and gives safeguards to member's rights. Section 29 of the Constitution is the only mechanism by which a member is exposed to direct detriment and this raises the possibility for disqualification from office and ultimately expulsion. The whole point of the Peros action at the Certification Office was surely to safeguard those rights from arbitrary variation without authority. Napo argued that the actions were "pragmatic" that the Constitution should not be applied with the strictness of statute. The certification officer evidently did not support that view.

*****
Well said. A Trade Union needs to abide by its own constitution, else, where is the mandate for Reps to hold employers to account for THEIR failure to abide by the rules in respect of their Members? We just become a hypocritical laughing stock with no authority.

*****
Have I read the same Certification Officer's Report as discussed on here? I don't think it was ever disputed that the Officers breached the constitution - the Report says that was agreed by all, Officers included. It reads that it was the reasoning behind the breaches that was complained about. So didn't the CO have to find that the constitution was breached?

No action was taken to remedy the breaches as the matter was discontinued and the CO declined to make an Enforcement Order. The CO even noted that no issues of bias or unfairness were raised. It's hardly the disgraceful scandal cited by some in the comments on this issue. In fact, some of the comments have been quite disrespectful about the alleged initial complaint that seems to have been about bullying of someone. It's almost like some members want to create internal damage to Napo rather than focus on the struggles we should be working on! C'mon Dino et al fight for - not against Napo!