Unison broke law by letting trans woman stand for female-only role

[IwantToRetire]

Britain’s biggest trade union broke the law by allowing a transgender woman to run for a senior female role, a watchdog has ruled.

Unison broke its own rules and defied the Supreme Court ruling on gender when it let a biological male run for a seat that was ring-fenced for women on its national executive committee (NEC) last May.

A complaint against Unison, which represents more than 1.3 million public service workers, has been upheld by the trade unions regulator.

Stephen Hardy, the certification officer, said in his decision that the case had been “a complex and sensitive matter”. He called on trade unions “to ensure that they review their rules, procedures and guidance”.

Continue reading at https://www.aol.com/articles/trade-union-broke-law-letting-165514000.html

I think this is based on this Telegraph article that I cant access.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/10/trade-union-broke-law-letting-trans-woman-female-role/

Gift token for the telegraph article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/f888a6f71091614d

A very important judgement. Clock is ticking for union sexists.

Fabulous. About time the dinosaur misogynist unions were taken to task on this. They’re an utter disgrace.

I can see that originally it would have been difficult to steer a way through to solutions that supported everyone. It would have been genuinely hard, years ago, to know what to do, especially coming from a history of all sorts of minorities getting a shit deal and unions standing up for them. I can definitely imagine myself going down that rabbit hole and not thinking it all through. Then how do you reverse ferret once you grasp the issues and complexity?

But the Supreme Court judgment made that all so much easier.

We know that it is not helping this man to agree with him that he is a woman and it’s frankly disrespectful to women to tell them that he is.

What is interesting in all this is to think how large organisations can have the flexibility to reconsider and to negotiate.

Edited to add that I wish the DT had referred to the Supreme Court’s decision on sex

Thank you IwantToRetire for the link to AOL - I still get a paywall message when I try to access the Telegraph 'gift' link, maybe it's because I am outside the UK?

Anyway, the AOL link is great thanks. Great to see the once untouchable unions being held to account and required to <shock horror> obey the law!

The response of the transwoman in question, Ellie Waple, is to condemn
the undemocratic and unaccountable Supreme Court
which seems to me to be a pretty root-and-branch challenge to the entire judicial and legislative underpinning of the United Kingdom - hope you have better luck challenging that than the EA2010, Ellie!

The AOL link includes an article from the Independent about the [alleged] extent and cost of restoring single-sex provision.
The obvious question is how much did it cost to remove existing single-sex facilities in the first place, and how much could organisations and companies have saved themselves if they'd just followed the law, the real law, not Stonewall law about their obligations under building regs, workplace regs, health and safety, EA, etc etc.

Good. Now how about getting unions to defend the rights of their women members?

...hope you have better luck challenging that than the EA2010, Ellie!

I hope equally fervently that Mx Waple is already knocking at the door of the ever-helpful Good Laugh Project

Thanks for the link.

"the undemocratic and unaccountable Supreme Court".

Where as No Debate was the epitome of democracy.
I do love it when the totalitarian footsoldiers whine about it not being democratic when they're stopped from trampling over the rights of half of the human race.
The lack of self awareness is staggering, their sense of entitlement is stratospheric, those who are in unions need to start paying attention to what's being done in their name.

The court didn't change the law. It just analysed the laws that had already been democratically made and worked out what they were actually saying. As courts do.

And this person - and their union - believes they are qualified to be a Union rep? I despair.

Have just posted on another thread that I think the Telegraph has created a block to stop non subscribers from archiving article. On another thread (about survey of Scottish Councils) I found a version of the telegraph article via PressReader - always worth a look. And quite often, the new web site just reproduce articles as a whole.

Anyhow back to the story itself.

I was really pleased to see this.

But still so angry that most of the media never reflect these legal decisions that confirm women's sex based rights, but continue with a barrage of angry TRAs saying they are the victims.

I said on another thread, if anyone is in a union, vot next time and encourage your colleagues to vote, to get rid of these idiots. They get in on tiny percentages of the membership.

Better still, propose yourself, if you feel you have the stamina for it!