This is not only a big deal locally, but has been gathering momentum as an issue of much more widespread interest for the general principles involved as well as for the situation of the individual involved. I think it deserves all the publicity it can get! One way to sum it up is that a local union workplace rep and facilitator is essentially being sacked for being too good at her job, but there is more to it than that.What’s it all about then?
To oversimplify it, the Surrey & Sussex NHS Trust (SASH) has had a post of Trade Union Facilitator (TUF) for about four years now. The position is elected by all the unions in the trust and the person who is elected is seconded into the post, which is paid by the trust.
The trust have now decided that they are making the post redundant and are replacing it with a new post of Trade Union Convenor. The new post will be an appointment by management. The current TUF has been told she is ‘at risk’ and will be made redundant along with the job.
What is wrong with that?
First of all there is the principle that the unions would be represented by a management appointee. This will not be somebody who the staff will feel is on their side, and it removes the staff’s representation.  Will the new convenor really stand up to the management when it counts? Or ever?
This a bad precedent to be setting.
In this case the incumbent has been a very effective campaigner, fighting to keep a shuttle bus service between Crawley and the East Surrey Hospital for staff and patients to use, leading to suspicions that the move is designed to remove somebody who has been a thorn in the side of the trust management and board for a long time. Victimisation in other words.
With the removal of the current TUF role (which the unions were not consulted on at all) the incumbent, Zena Dodgson, will not revert to the original job she was seconded from, or a similar job. The trust say that she has been doing it so long that it is now her substantive job, although I would be willing to bet that is not what her contract says.
In that case it should mean that she should be offered the new role which, on paper at least, is similar to her current job, but that is not an option either. The trust really are trying to have it both ways.
This would obviously have a big impact on Zena, making her unemployed, but it has other results too. The local Unison branch would lose a senior officer – if she was no longer an NHS employee she would not be eligble for the office – which they can ill afford to do. The hospital would also stand less chance of meeting criteria for foundation trust status – failing with Core Standard C17 which states “the views of patients, their carers and others are sought and taken into account in designing, planning, delivering and improving health care services.”
If the trust fails to get foundation trust status it could have serious effects on the healthcare in the Horsham/Crawley/Horley/Redhill area as the trust could end up getting moved into another foundation trust elsewhere and management would be even more remote from local influence.
Another impact is that if the trust go ahead with this then there is every chance that staff at the trust could find themselves considering industrial action, because Zena is very popular amongst the staff there for all the work she does on their behalf, and that is something nobody really wants. If we can do anything to prevent them needing to turn to that last resort then we should.
What is happening about this?
Obviously Unison are giving legal support and advice as any union would for any member. However, they can’t really do much in legal terms unless and until the employment is terminated, which in many respects is too late. They can get compensation which for many people would be enough, but that would still leave the trust with a glove puppet instead of proper staff representation.
Staff in the hospital have been signing a petition on the noticeboards, and members of other unions in the area have offered support. They intend to turn up at the hospital at the time Zena’s appeal interview takes place to lobby the trust and show their support.
Other members of health unions, and other unions, across the country have written to the trust’s chief executive to express their opinions on the situation.
What can I do about it?
There are a few things that anybody can do:
- Read more about the case – don’t just take my word for it. You can Google “Zena Dodgson” and find lots of references like this and this.
- Pass the word around. Make the case more widely known. If you are in a union or progressive political party pass this information on to your members. Tweet it. Blog it.
- Write to the SASH chief executive Gail Wannell (details in the links above) in a personal capacity.
- Get your local union branch or party branch to write
- Turn up at East Surrey Hospital for 3pm on December 8th and join the lobby. If you want to do that and need transport I can put you in touch with the local trade council who will help – although the contacts in the links above would be able to do that too.
- Or if you know somebody who works at the trust, see if they would want to go along to make the support more visible.
Is this just a party political thing?
Far from it. Zena Dodgson is not a member of the Labour Party. In fact, she is a member of the Respect crowd who is as likely to be attacking our local Labour MP in the newspapers as the trust board and whose fellow left-wing fringe colleagues stand against Labour and nearly caused us to lose the Crawley seat at the last general election.
This is one of those cases where solidarity amongst workers and trade unionists in the face of victimisation and injustice are more important than party matters.
Good to see a liebour activist supporting the Socialist Workers’ Party, I’d expect no different. The women plasters the place with SWP and associated literature on all subjects, which hardly endears her to many staff.
Eddy, I’ve no idea who you are, but I am the person you presumably are referring to as “the women” in your comment.
I need to point out other inacuracies in your piece:
1. I am not & never have been a member of the SWP.
2. Even if I were a member of that organisation, I would not be “plastering the place” with their literature or any other material that is not from either the Trade Union Stewards Committee or Surrey & Sussex Healthcare Branch of Unison. Union noticeboards are provided by the Trust for the recognised Trade Unions to use. They are not the place for party political or personal material to be displayed.
I’d be grateful if you could send me any of the material you find so offensive, with details of where this was displayed. Kindly also ask any staff who may not be “endeared” to me to contact me with their complaints so that I can discuss their concerns with them, as I have received no such complaints.
I look forward to hearing from you. In the interim, kindly stop libelling me.
What’s the difference between the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) ?
As I see it, this injustice might just happen because you left-wing idealogical fanatics can’t get your act together – and the right-wing just lap it up.
It’s called ‘Divide & Rule’.
Eddy, if the staff didn’t like her, they could have under the current system not re-elect her to the position and vote for someone else. The Trust wants to impose someone on the employees instead.
Zean.
I should have said ‘woman’ not women. I note that you are not a member of the SWP but assume you are a supporter of Respect. I am amazed that you haven’t seen the large amount of left-wing literature that has appeared in the area near the restaurant over several years. A nurse at the hosipital mentioned this to me, and when my father was in hospital a while back I wandered along and found literature from Respect. Since then all sorts of posters advertising marches etc have been put on the notice board. Not all hospital staff are labourites, I think you would have more support if you stopped pushing you politicl views.
Dear Eddy
I assume you are referring to literature displayed on Unison notice boards at ESH which are situated near the canteen.
Material posted may well have ‘advertised’ marches but these would only have been those supported by Unison nationally, e.g. Stop the War demos.
Unison nationally is affiliated to Stop the War & other campaigns which Branches are asked to publicise to members.
I’m afraid you are also wrong about my being a Respect supporter/member currently. I did join Respect when it first came into being, but did not renew my membership when the party split into factions; I do not support either faction.
I am not a member of any political party. Respect was the first -& last-political party I have ever joined.
If you saw Respect material posted anywhere in the workplace, I can assure you it would not have been posted by me.
As stated, I do not post anything other than official Unison literature, (or that produced by campaigns they are affiliated to) or internal Branch or TUSC items in the workplace.
To reiterate, please ask any staff who are unhappy with what is displayed on the Union boards to contact either myself or the relevant Union to discuss their concerns.
TUSC reps do not wish to cause upset or distress to any of the staff- why would we, when we spend most of our working lives trying to improve theirs?
Zena
Thanks for making that clear Zena. I’ve certainly no other issues with you, best of luck and hope you don’t end up amonnst the ranks of the unemployed.
Thanks Eddy. Your apology is accepted.
Z
Dear All
Appeal went on for 3.5 hours- result not expected until Thursday!
Z
In a real democracy this would take 3-4 minutes to decide – not 3-5 hours.
If SASH get their way, we can kiss goodbye to real democracy…it will be autocracy dressed up to look good.
To their great credit, Crawley Observer & Crawley News covers this important – critical – story :
“Public anger over plight of union rep”, Crawley Observer, December 9 – Page 20
“Anger as NHS sacks elected union officer”, Crawley News, December 9 – Page 8
Thanks Richard. I will try to get hold of the papers.
Just heard the appeal decision will be announced this arvo; I’m not optimistic common sense will prevail.
Z
Only one of them made the effort to turn up at a draughty church hall on a miserable Weds night for the meeting though…
If SASH get their way – which would be democratically monstrous – what further action can be taken ?
Where – and at what time – is the decision to be announced ?
Dear All
The judgement arrived late this afternoon, & the panel has partially upheld the appeal. They agreed with us that the TUF role is a secondment & not my substantive role, therefore the Trust cannot make me redundant from it.
However, the panel has not made any recommendation regarding my proposed date of dismissal despite being asked to recommend the threat of redundancy be withdrawn formally.
We also suggested they leave the TUF role in place as it is currently, until my period of elected office expires, i.e. next June, as the new TUC role is nowhere being agreed.
As they have not made either of our requested recommendations, we are not clear what this means for my original finish date of 31st December.
Anna Berry (UNISON FTO) has emailed the Chair of the panel seeking some clarification – hopefully we’ll get this tomorrow, but we certainly can’t celebrate just yet!
Update tomoz hopefully!
Z
Good news – or at least not totally bad news. Certainly a step in the right direction.
I couldn’t see how they could get away with arguing that it was not a secondment. Surely it is their responsibility to make sure either your original job, or an equivalent is available to you – especially as the secondment was ended unilaterally by them.
The long-term prospect for the union position looks a bit shakey, but sort yourself out first.
Doesn’t it also rather beg the question as to why 2 very senior, experienced (& highly-paid) HR people can’t tell the difference between a substantive & a seconded post?
As Trust employees, they are being paid with our money too……..!
Isn’t this what was called US-styled “Union-busting” ?
Union-Busting on the NHS ?
Not to their great credit, Johnston Press have decided not to even cover this story – let alone give an update from their Crawley Observer coverage.
Nothing in Crawley Times or WSCT today – December 11. Shame on them.
But they did cover this, which made me laugh (Health review is branded expensive ‘shambles'”, Crawley & WSC Times, Dec 11 – Page 15) :
“The sooner we make the NHS democratically accountable to the taxpayer who fund it, the sooner we will get better transparency and accountability of the NHS to the public”
Yes, SASH. Yes, Johnston Press.
Zena – are you out there – or is there dome kind of ‘gagging order’ now in place ?
Hi Richard
Yes, I’m still around- bloodied but unbowed as they say!
Have received the official withdrawal of “notice of dismissal on grounds of redundancy” now.
TUSC have said we need the TUF role reinstated until any new role is mutually agreed, as this is the agreed mechanism for dialogue between the Trust & the Unions.
As the Trust have unilaterally withdrawn it, it appears they do not wish to engage with the Unions.
The Finance Director has now got involved & appears to genuinely want to resolve this. As a gesture of goodwill, TUSC have agreed to put contacting ACAS ‘on hold’ temporarily whilst we await a response from FD re TUF role.
We are hoping for a positive response by Tuesday!
Z
Alan Walker – Non Executive Director – SASH – Appointed Oct/Nov 2009
http://www.surreyandsussex.nhs.uk/news/ … rector.asp
All non-executive appointments are made on merit and political activity plays no part in the selection process. However, in accordance with the original Nolan recommendations, there is a requirement for appointees’ political activity to be made public.
· Alan Walker has declared he has canvassed on behalf of a party and helped with elections but holds no ministerial appointment.
Mr Walker, retired in 2006, has worked most of his career in the financial services sector. He worked for nearly 25 years at 3i, a private equity and venture capital company, where he had various senior posts, including Group Treasurer and Chairman of Ship Mortgage Finance Company. His first job was a mathematics teacher at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Currently, he is also a Director of Reigate Grammar School. Mr Walker is married with three children and lives in Reigate.
Looks promising Z – good to hear.
Could you explain this “Foundation Trust Status” which SASH are seeking – and presumably have brought in Alan Walker to make this happen ?
To my simple mind, it seems like ‘privatization through the back-door’ using the “NHS” name as a front – with unions (eg UNISON) being pushed out – ie Union-busting on the NHS.
How accurate – or inaccurate – is that ?
It!s good to see the Finance Director (Paul Simpson?) getting involved, but what about the HR Ditector (Jenny Woollett?) – surely she must be aware of Union Recognition requirements, embodied in law ?!
Or have you had a falling out or something ?
There are still matters here which remain of deep concern :
Are these US-styled ‘union-busting’ antics
(1) the result of an incompetent, unprofessional, irresponsible local SASH board, or
(2) the result of a premeditated ‘hidden agenda’ throughout all NHS Trusts who seek Foundation Trust Status ?
If (1), then I can see the issue being sorted out amicably enough, without too much damage, on either side – with just acute embarrassment on the management side, but a sense of justice & fairness prevailing.
If (2), then I can see the issue become more bitter & fractious – probably leading to industrial action.
Much depends, as I see it, on this very big little fella Mr Walker. If he has been brought in to ensure Foundation Trust Status – no matter what – there is likely to be an unwritten IMF-styled requirement to ‘control the unions’, or else this Status will not be granted.
Decoding ‘control the unions’ might simply be – ‘Get rid of Zena Dodgson – she’s trouble’.
We’ll know soon enough…
Hi again Richard
You missed out unprincipled & untrustworthy!
You are quite right that this is all about privatisation.
When Alan Milburn was Sec of State for Health, he decreed that all Trusts must become Foundation Trusts. This means basically they are run as businesses, & staff/patients become ‘share-holders’.
Btw, no one has ever answered my question ‘would the shareholders be liable if the ‘business’ made a loss’?
Although Unions are opposed fundamentally to this, as it is yet another way of carving up the NHS, many of them are too close to govt at National level to make anything more than a few half-hearted grumbles against FT’s.
If SASH don’t make it by their declared date of December 2010, they will probably be subsumed into another FT which could be 100’s of miles away, thus making management even more remote than it is now. Read Dr John Lister’s letter to Gail Wannell here:
http://www.labournet.net/default.asp
Info from the SHA here:
http://www.southeastcoast.nhs.uk/aboutus/theboard/papers/documents/MicrosoftWord-39-09-FTupdate-June09-final.pdf
The Execs seem to believe I am an obstacle to their reaching FT status; this is their 3rd attempt at getting rid of me, the 2nd within about 15 months.
I’m not sure how much influence , if any, Mr Walker will exert. The non-Execs are supposed to challenge the Execs, & curb their worst excesses of bad practice, incompetence etc, as are the Patient Council. However, I’ve never heard any serious challenges from either of those quarters at any Trust Board meetings I’ve attended. The few NEDs that I’ve seen challenge them over the years have all given it up as a bad job & left!
To answer your questions about the Execs, JW is sick.
Z
Here is a professional manager’s ‘take’ on this issue – someone who I respect and has no involvement :
Our long-standing position in [professional body] is that, where employees want to be represented by a trade union, management should respect their wishes. That is of course now backed up by the statutory processes for union recognition.  But I’m not clear how far that directly affects the present case. The issue whether to support full-time representative posts, how many, and how those posts should be filled, will normally be a matter for discussion and agreement, but in the end for management to take.
Â
As you know, I don’t want to be drawn in to commenting on the specific case, not least since I don’t have any of the relevant background other than what is in the emails  you sent. However it looks as if management is not happy to perpetuate a situation where the unions nominate to the post of union convenor, and apparently wish to appoint to this position themselves. I’m unclear frankly how this will work out and what consultations they may have undertaken with other existing representatives. But there may also be an issue about the political affiliations of the current convenor and I don’t know how far this may have influenced management attitudes.Â
Â
I certainly believe that partnership can be a powerful force for good in the NHS, provided there are good working relationships between the two sides.  I am unable to comment on whether this is more or less likely to be the case here.
Â
I doubt if these comments will help you much, but they are the best I can offer. As you know Acas will generally be in the best position to offer practical help if there is general unhappiness.
[Edited by Skuds at Richard’s request]
Hi Richard
TUSC reps are aware that I’m a socialist & that I’m not affiliated to anyone. Many if not most Trade Unionists I know are the same. However, that is not the issue. They elect me because they believe I will be the best person to take forward our issues & those of our members.
This is what management don’t want to hear. We remind them of their Duty of Care & other obligations which they would rather ignore.
That’s why they would prefer a puppet in the role.
Z
“Management”, in this NHS case, is paid for by us the taxpayers – we are (in a very real sense) their bankrollers.
The Government – local & national – represent ‘we the people’ (eg taxpayers) in a real democracy.
So, with that said, what is the National Government’s position (eg Laura Moffatt MP), and what is Local Government’s position (eg WSCC & CBC) ?
You tell me Richard! I haven’t heard from Ms Moffatt, nor from the 2 Councils as collectives.
Some Councillors have individually sent messages of support.
Z
I’m surprised you haven’t heard from an MP – they are accountable & answerable to us, the people…
One local MP has replied thus :
Thank you for getting in touch about the change to trade union representation on the SASH Board.
Â
Clearly it is of concern and I have already written to the Chief Executive for an explanation.
Politicians, Academics, Directors, Managers etc need to be reminded they have clear moral & legal obligations – especially in this respect :
http://www.unfpa.org/rights/language/right7.htm
We also need to remind ourselves that Trade Unionists are being killed in Columbia, simply because of being a Trade Unionist.
It is painful – but necessary – to also remind ourselves that if Zena, a Socialist & Trade Unionist, was living in Columbia, there is little to no doubt she would have been killed some time ago – along with many others branded as “extreme”…
Mr Alan Walker (Chairman – Reigate Grammar)
… Former Chairman, Reigate St. Mary’s Preparatory and Choir School…
…Joined the Board of Reigate Grammar School in 2000…
… Currently, he is also a Director of Reigate Grammar School. Mr Walker is married with three children and lives in Reigate.
“34&rising” says on Gatwick City of Ideas :
“Hmmm… This is quite interesting.
“It is common knowledge amongst many ‘Reigations’, that the schools mentioned above are the preferred schools of choice of many freemason families in the Reigate area.
Richard W. Symonds says on gatwick City of ideas :
“UNION-BUSTING ON THE NHS” – THE GREAT THREAT TO DEMOCRACY
IS ALAN WALKER – NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SASH – A FREEMASON ?
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=91&hilit=Freemasons
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=240
I wondered when it would get around to freemasons… there should be special case of Godwin’s law for you!
Alan Walker – Non Executive Director – SASH – Appointed Oct/Nov 2009
http://www.surreyandsussex.nhs.uk/news/ … rector.asp
All non-executive appointments are made on merit and political activity plays no part in the selection process. However, in accordance with the original Nolan recommendations, there is a requirement for appointees’ political activity to be made public.
· Alan Walker has declared he has canvassed on behalf of a party and helped with elections but holds no ministerial appointment.
Hospital Cleaners “worth more to society” than Bankers :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8410489.stm
SASH Board, esp Alan Walker, please note.
Interesting bunch the New Economics Foundation. I went to a fringe event they co-hosted at the Labour conference with the WWF and the ICAEW (institute of chartered accountants) about sustainable economics.
Symonds Law states that when Godwin’s Law is cited, you know you’re on the right track 😉
“Union rep’s job safe for now”, Crawley Observer, December 16 – Page 18
(Not Online)
“Hospital union rep wins case against dismissal and fights on”, Crawley News, December 16 – Page 7 (& a very good article which makes a complex issue – and a made complex issue -much more clear to the general reader)
Well done Crawley News! And it’s Online :
http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/crawley/n … ticle.html
And well done Crawley Observer for continuing the story from last week (even though not online) – something your ‘big sister’ paper – Crawley Times – inexplicably (& disgracefully) failed to do last week.
Seems the new Trust Chair is from the West Sussex side of the patch- I wonder if this will make a difference to patients struggling to access services at ESH?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8430907.stm
The new SASH Chairman brings his experience from Andersen Consulting & The World Bank ??!! God help us all.
The Importance of a Union Education
http://www.truthout.org/1227095
On December 1 2009, Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford – where I have to go for my deafness – was “authorised as an NHS Foundation Trust”.
“The main freedoms the (NHS) Trust will enjoy as a Foundation Trust are : Freedom from central government control….”
Ummmmm….and there was I thinking the whole point of a National Health Service was that it was controlled nationally (ie by the Central Government) on behalf of the national taxpayer ?
Silly me.
“Liberalisation” – Malaya – The UK NHS
This is well worth a read – a little overlong in its analysis, but ‘bang on target’ – not just in Malaya, but also here in the NHS :
http://limboochang.com/?p=5925
Dangerous times…
http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/trust_to_axe_trade_union_role_1_3143474