Threatened with dismissal for telling the truth about racism in Hackney Council
Lobby the disciplinary hearing
Friday 25 April at 9 am Christopher Addision House (behind the Town Hall) Mare Street Hackney E8.

In December 2002, Hackney council suspended Unison branch officers, John Page, Brian Debus and Will Leng. Since then all allegations against Will have been dropped, and the allegations against Brian have been reduced from gross misconduct to misconduct. John Page, however, still faces dismissal and his hearing is this Friday.

What are the allegations?
In his role as Unison Branch Equalities Officer, John circulated a draft report written by Unison members which was intended for submission to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The circulation was to Unison shop stewards, branch committee members, and members of the Black Workers Group. This was to seek comments and corrections, etc. When circulating the document, John asked that it not be forwarded electronically and described it as 'rough and ready' and sought comments; 'I am keen to have initial thoughts particularly what's missing, what has been said badly, what is inaccurate, confusing or misleading'. The aim was to produce a final draft for presentation to the council and the CRE.


Management had in fact agreed that the Unison Black Workers Group could have a meeting in work time to consider the draft and amend/correct as necessary. So John was acting in a manner initially agreed by management.

Brian never circulated the document and this is accepted by management, however, they believe that he failed to appropriately discharge his duties as corporate representative (whatever that means)!

John only circulated the report inside the council, to Unison members who had a direct interest in or involvement in its contents. As a matter of courtesy, he provided a copy for consideration to the council's Race Equality Scrutiny Group, and it was this act that was originally central to the allegation of gross misconduct against John. However, this allegation was dropped when it was pointed out that it was the council's head of core human resources and the council's director of law and probity who had circulated the report to that committee.

Originally, the council claimed that the report was 'defamatory' but that allegation has also now been dropped and the truth of the allegations in the report are no longer disputed.

John has legal protection from this victimisation. This protection includes; the 'victimisation' provisions of the Race Relations Act; the 'dismissal on the basis of trade union activities' within the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act and the 'whistleblowing' provisions of the Employment Rights Act. The Human rights Act (the right to receive and impart information) is also relevant. Yet management are prepared to set this protection aside to achieve the dismissal of John.

The manager presenting the case against John has confirmed in writing ;'I accept that as an employee and as a Trade Union representative, you have every right to raise complaints of race discrimination and any other perceived wrongdoings. I am also not concerned, for the purposes of the hearing, whether the contents of the said report are true or not. I acknowledge the right of any employee to make complaints in a proper way as 'protected acts'. However, I maintain that your action of widely circulating the said report is a disclosure outside this protection and this will be my contention at the hearing.'


What's it really about?
It is clear that when management saw the draft Unison report, they recognised that it made a compelling case for further intervention by the CRE. The report urged the CRE to seek a high court injunction so that those managers who continue to breach the race relations act could be jailed for contempt of court. It appears that managers who had come to believe they were immune from investigation, even when demonstrably discriminating in the most blatant way, felt threatened. To protect what they percieve as their right to discriminate, management decided to crush John at any cost.

Who is John Page
John is a committed trade union activist with a record for winning discrimination cases. In 1998, when the council restructured, they systematically and unlawfully denied employment to black women on maternity leave. John led a campaign to challenge that racist malpractice. Eventually he demonstrated that the council knew all along that they were discriminating, and won substantial compensation for the women affected (and re-employment for the majority of them).

In January 2000, John was elected Hackney Unison branch secretary following a grass roots democracy campaign. Management had developed a cosy relationship with the branch which had conveniently turned a 'blind eye' to management malpractice. All that changed when John and others sought to turn the union into an effective defence of its members' interests. In December 2000, the re-invigorated branch produced a report to the CRE which lead to the service of a non-discrimination notice.

John was successful at exposing racist managers, while at the same time co-ordinating the campaign to defend council workers terms and conditions. Despite a campaign of industrial action, and clear evidence of management malpractice that campaign was eventually lost, when the council dismissed and offered re-engagement to council workers who refused to voluntarily accept a cut in their terms and conditions.

John went on to present the consequent employment tribunal cases, on behalf of the branch and the results are due in May. If successful, that one case alone will cost the council well over a million pound.

Throughout the time John was branch secretary he was constantly threatened with disciplinary action, on one occasion for being too effective at representing victims of race discrimination. Announcing the disciplinary investigation, a senior HR officer wrote; 'while I recognise your right to represent your members views it would appear on the basis of the information I have so far that you have moved beyond what could ordinarily be considered acceptable by the organisation'.

On another occasion he was threatened for stating that despite the non-discrimination notice Unison members would continue to face discrimination (allegedly for undermining council procedures).

He was threatened after he wrote to elected councillors and told them that the contents of the council's legal advice in relation to the terms and conditions dispute, which had been concealed from them by management (on the basis that he should not have had documentary evidence of the malpractice)!

On another occasion John was threatened with disciplinary action, because the branch had developed a close working relationship with the community campaign Hackney Against Library Closures when the council was seeking to close four of the seven community libraries.

In August of 2002, after a period of stress related ill-health, John resigned as branch secretary, but continued to pursue the equalities agenda, by accepting the role as joint branch equalities officer.

John was instructed not to represent individual members (but continued to do so). The threatened dismissal is just part of a long line of victimisation and malpractice.

Will John get a fair hearing?
To date management have refused to explain the basis for the allegations against John. They simply assert that the various legal protections do not apply (presumably because this is Hackney and they always ignore workers rights). On top of this, John has been barred from visiting his office to download computer records, and collect documentary evidence in his filing cabinet. John has even been barred from contacting his own witnesses.

What are the CRE doing?
The CRE received the finished version of the Unison report, from the regional office in January 2003. A delegation from Unison Black Workers Group have met with officers of the CRE to present the issues in the report and to discuss what the CRE should do. The meeting was confidential and informal, but they have expressed concern and indicated that they will be considering the council's compliance with the non-discrimination notice. We believe that the CRE are morally obliged to act. If the CRE had enforced their original notice, then Unison would not have needed to draft a report.


What can be done
Management are seeking John's dismissal (and a written warning for Brian) in an attempt to frighten Hackney council workers into silence. They want to create a climate where no one dares to challenge blatant racism.

It is therefore incumbent on everyone that we participate in activity to expose Hackney's racism.

Join the lobby on Friday at 9am.

If you work for the council and are not a Unison member, join up now!

If you work in Hackney, in a section that has no shop steward, then call a local meeting to elect one (get a branch officer to attend to give an update on current issues in the council).

A ballot for industrial action is due to begin in the next week. If you are a Hackney Unison member, make sure that you and your colleagues vote.

If you are a member of the Hackney community you can support the campaign by passing resolutions through local groups and trade union branches, calling for an investigation into racist malpractice in Hackney, and the dropping of all allegations against John page and Brian Debus.

Send an email's to Trevor Phillips at the CRE (use the suggested form of words, or write your own).


 info@cre.gov.uk or fax 020 7939 0001


Dear Trevor Phillips,


I am writing to express concern at the inactivity of the CRE in relation to the persistent racist malpractice in Hackney council, and in particular the proposed dismissal of John Page, and the lesser disciplinary action against Brian Debus.

In the light of the numerous examples of racism practised by Hackney and its failure to comply with the non discrimination notice, the CRE must act. Otherwise, racist employers will simply assume they can dismiss trade union activists who 'whistle-blow' on their malpractice.

Send one to Mayor Pipe;  mayor@hackney.gov.uk or fax 0208 356 3657

'Dear Mr Pipe, I understand that Hackney Council is threatening to dismiss John Page, and to discipline Brian Debus for their part in the production of a Unison report into racism. I understand that the council has failed to investigate the allegations which include systematic malpractice .

Can I suggest that a Labour administration would do better to work with the trade union, and its elected representatives to meet its statutory duty to eradicate racism, rather than participate in victimisation in this way.'




Messages of support for Brian and John can be sent to  Hackney.unison@unisonfree.net.


Whatever happens on Friday, we will continue to demand action against institutionalised racism in Hackney council.



--