UCU being taken to tribunal over discrimination for 'gc' views

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/gender-critical-documentary-makers-take-ucu-tribunal

The filmmakers of 'Adult Human Female' are taking UCU to tribunal.

I'll try to find an archive copy.

Tomorrow's witnesses for the Respondent:
Lena Wånggren (only AM with a possible later return)
Grant Buttars.

How does one determine what the obligations of a union are - who decides, I wonder? I get that Shereen's own practice and experience was that the union would defend any legal speech by the member, but is there, in fact, a legal obligation for the union to do so? ETA clearly what the union can't do is discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics including gc beliefs, but then don't we need evidence of the union defending members with a variety of other legal views? Maybe that's coming.

I felt for Shereen because I too would have found it excruciating not to be allowed to explain and give context, but memo to self and anyone else who might appear in court like this: it really comes over better, doesn't it, if as a witness you don't try to take over. I think it would have been better if Shereen had just trusted Naomi to pick up the places where more needed to be said.

The academics (for the Claimant) have done well in arguing their case and defending their position but, as you say, the urge to do this must be kept on a leash to some degree.

I’ve been away all afternoon. Has today’s sitting ended? I just get WFTCHTJ

Ended before 4pm. There was a natural break in proceedings.

Thank you. Will it start at 10am tomorrow? Fortunately I have no meetings for the rest of this week, unless there’s something I’ve forgotten.

J - Obviously reading subs and hearing from u oral we need to know we have enough time so we will agree tomorrow. Starting at 10AM in the morning. Thank you. Good afternoon.

[HEARING ENDS]

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1907445508559274037

Excellent, thank you.

I looked at Tribunal Tweets page ( too soon) but it won’t let me find it on TwiX unless I rejoin.

https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Did Sheeran not come over well?

She came across fine. It's just that she was somewhat assertive and she was slightly scolded.

Excellent. Thank you @nauticant

I find it best to enter via their Substack page as it's nicely laid out with abbreviations & links.

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adult-human-female-filmmakers-vs

Yes, this is what I am wondering too - who determines what a union can and can’t do? Presumably there are regulations somewhere on its scope and its obligations.

There’s a brief overview of the law here but it doesn’t really clarify this:
https://herries-smith.co.uk/news/trade-unions-an-essential-guide/

Really, they brought it on themselves! All they had to do was apply for one of these:

I know that the National Federation of Sub Postmasters was told it doesn't meet the requirements to be described as a union, but that was because post masters don't have an employee/employer relationship with the post office.

I suppose unions are intrinsically political in a way that goes above and beyond supporting their members, because of their ties to the Labour Party.

However, particularly in the current political climate, I would have thought that the more you push the idea that Union membership = signing up to a very partisan list of views on foreign policy and rights, the more you undermine the concept of unions as organisations that represent all workers.

I’ve been trying to find more information on this. This short government document on “unjustifiable discipline by your trade union” is quite interesting:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c5c34ed915d696ccfc403/06-559-trade-union-unjustifiable-discipline.pdf

Obviously it’s most about industrial action etc, but I’m not sure if we could say that GC UCU members have been (page 4) “subjected to any other detriment or disadvantage not listed above”?

Interesting.

The point about 'deprivation.... of any benefits or services otherwise be available to him as a member' stands out. We know GC academics have had unions refuse to stand up for their employment rights due to their GC beliefs - a case brought on these grounds should be slam dunk.

That doesn't apply in this case, but it does in many others. Passing policies which are directly in opposition to and create a hostile environment in the union for sex realist views, and which take up a particular ideological position could be said to be doing this too. Particularly if it means employees feel they cannot rely on the union for help because the reps will treat them with contempt / throw them under the bus.

"Detriment" is a frequently arising keyword in ETs and yes, I think it covers what happened here. Hope NC's final submission is made available to us (I hope we'll get to download that, probably?)

Yes - as you say, that isn’t what’s happened in this case but it would be very interesting to see a test case on this. I hadn’t realised before all this you could take your union to an employment tribunal. I believe Kathleen Stock was a UCU member originally (or did I imagine that?) so surely she could have had a case against them.

And, on that matter I presume this is the same Grant Buttars (today’s witness), comparing Stock to a pro-paedophile racist: https://revsoc21.uk/2021/11/02/when-is-it-right-for-a-union-to-support-dismissal/

IANAL but looking at that document, Catabogus , I'd guess there's a good chance that that extremely wide definition of "discipline" covers what happened here and that "detriment" covers the result, so fingers crossed.

Dr Wanggren has a very carefully curated bookshelf.

I could read the Witness statements and Bundle yesterday but not today. Perhaps the hosting solicitors haven’t done the equivalent of enabling them at 10am today, after correctly making them unavailable when the tribunal wasn’t sitting.

The claimants are referred to on the cover page as “Mr” and “Ms” rather than by their academic titles.

I can read them but I had the page already open from yesterday.