Suspension: Labour’s weapon of mass intimidation
JVL Introduction
In this critical assessment Michael Murray argues that Rule 2.1.8 of the Labour Party Rulebook is weaponised in order to suppress political views unwanted by those who control the Party machine.
Rule 2.1.8 is an abuse of any notion of natural justice argues former trade-union official Michael Murray. For if you are accused under it, reading the rule will leave you no wiser as to how you might have broken the rule or what you are accused of.
It does not even meet the minimal standards which Acas proposes for employing organisations – how much more relevant should they not be to an organisation with democratic socialist aims?
This article was originally published by Labour Affairs on Thu 1 Apr 2021. Read the original here.
Diary of a Corbyn Foot Soldier (April 2021)
Loading article text…
Tom Watson was not suspended for his willingness to use nuclear weapons as this chilling article shows:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2018/10/27/watch-labours-deputy-leader-reveal-the-awful-connection-he-shares-with-theresa-may/
Terrible injustices of the present leadership must be challenged & perpetrators answerable for their actions.
Scary situation to find yourself in as a member. This new management actually is not new it seems to be a revival of what was around before and did not work then.
I am very annoyed at the present management’s seemingly only approach to members who dare to speak out or do not display management’s particular views as their own, ie the suspensions. This is not democratic, it is highly oppressive. Seems to me they are not wanting to engage with members as equals,nor allow members to have a voice with which to express their views.
Additionally there is also a lack of substance, vision and direction. So are suspensions seen as the a way of distracting from this? However, by their actions they have also shown, at least to me,whose side they are on, or rather whose they are not on but should be on.
As a highly qualified and experienced HR professional I agree. I advised a suspended member that they probably had a contractual employment agreement with the Labour Party as an elected councillor. Money does not have to change hands to create a contract. I believe there is at least a case for ordinary breach of contract in the case of elected representatives and perhaps in that of other members.
A failure to provide natural justice in disputes is evidence of such a breach. But Im not a lawyer. You certainly would get the (law) book thrown at you as an employer at Tribunal for treating an employee in this manner. And I would expect to be punished for my incompetence in not protecting my employer from those consequences.
Also Rule Ch 1 Cl VIII s3, which says: “In furtherance of its primary purpose and key functions, the duties and powers of the NEC shall include: A. to uphold and enforce the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party and to take any action it deems necessary for such purpose …
Primary purpose of the NEC “shall be to provide a strategic direction for the Party as a whole and to maintain and develop an active Party in the country …”, and the key functions (A – G) include “maintain a healthy Party at all levels …” and “maintain a balanced partnership between all Party stakeholders”.
Yes you read that right: “to take ANY ACTION IT DEEMS NECESSARY for such purpose …”