8
How much did the unions know?
‘I’ve spent about 11 years unemployed on and off. Four kids and a wife. The thing that gets me the most, is when the unions are mentioned.’1
Blacklisted Liverpool bricklayer Tony Sweeney
For as long as rumours of a blacklist had circulated, so had suggestions that some union officials were somehow involved in the process. That had always been denied. But when the blacklist files started landing on doormats in the spring of 2009, the speculation of a union connection ended. As well as press cuttings and the information added by companies, there were entries that named a trade union or a union official as the source of the information. Unsurprisingly, the workers with these entries on their files went berserk. Activists expected the employers not to like them – but if individuals from their own side had been in any way involved in blacklisting, that would be seen as treachery.
The files released by the ICO were heavily redacted, so although the comments were visible, it was impossible to know for certain which official had made the comments (although in some cases it was possible to make a pretty good guess). Amongst themselves, and drawing on their experiences on building sites over many years, the blacklisted workers came up with lists of the most likely candidates who may have provided information. However, as more unredacted files were slowly released, there came more questions than answers.
A name on a blacklist file is not proof of deliberate collusion, and employers’ representatives may well have relied on hearsay and gossip, but a proper investigation should at least take place whenever a name appears. If someone chooses a career path that leads them to become an officer for a trade union, they often have a history of activism themselves. Why would they provide information about their own members to the employers?
The blacklist files were documents produced by the employers and their version of events is very often at odds with how a union will interpret the same incident. Even if every single union official whose name appears on blacklist documentation is completely innocent of any wrongdoing, why is their name mentioned as a source of information? How did the information get from the union official to the employer and on to the blacklist?
Two models of union activity
It is impossible to simply view the entries on the blacklist files in isolation. Any evidence that might suggest collusion needs to be placed in context. Only by understanding the history of industrial strategies adopted by the leadership of some trade unions is it possible to comprehend how a union official might have come to be named on a file.
Within trade unions there are differences of opinion about strategy. One current of opinion believes that the best way to advance the interests of members is to work in partnership with employers. If the company prospers, then the workers will benefit. The task of trade unions is to work collaboratively with management on issues where interests overlap; safety and learning are much touted examples. Building close relationships with the employers is seen as central to this approach and anything that upsets that relationship is seen as divisive: detrimental to employer and union alike.
This model sees the union as effectively providing a service, in the same way that the AA provides a service to stranded motorists. A member pays their fees and hopes they never have to meet anyone from the AA but, if there is a problem, they expect an expert to come in and solve it for them. Once the car is fixed, the member thanks the mechanic but hopes they never have to meet them again. The union variant of this ‘servicing’ approach also views members as passive recipients of services such as individual representation provided by union experts, often external from the actual workforce.
The alternative ‘organizing’ model argues that union strength is not based upon someone coming in to save the day but upon workers acting collectively. A union has real influence when it is able to encourage workers to recognize their own strength and stick together in the workplace. Emphasis is placed upon building grassroots networks of activists who can mobilize workers in support of union aims rather than rely upon a union official or a benevolent employer.
In practice, every trade union, regardless of political outlook, employs both strands. However, it is safe to say that the organizing/mobilization approach tends to be supported by the left, while the partnership/servicing model is championed by the more rightwing people within the movement. Internal union politics are not for the faint hearted, especially in an industry like construction. Political differences can sometimes spill out into naked hostility on building sites. Talk to any experienced union representative and you’ll hear talk of physical confrontations between reps and employers – and among union members themselves. It is hardly unusual for union officials to adopt a more conciliatory approach to certain issues than the members and activists they represent.
Ian Kerr was asked about the information attributed to union officials when he gave evidence to MPs:
‘I can sympathize with the union officials in that they represent their members… One or two people chose to disrupt a site. The poor union official had to resolve the two sides. Sometimes he didn’t want an unnecessary problem, nor did his union often, of an outbreak on a site of unofficially generated action. It was in the interests of the HR manager to know who he should speak to in a particular union to try and resolve such an issue without it costing the company.’2
The fact that some in the movement were prepared to work with blacklisting organizations to the detriment of individual members of their own union was confirmed during evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee by Jack Winder. The former director of information and research at the Economic League and, following its demise, director of Caprim Limited, told MPs: ‘While I was with the League we had very good relations with certain trade-union leaders, who were concerned about problems caused by the far left.’ He then named Leif Mills, from the banking union; Terry Carroll, from the engineering union; Eric Hammond, from the electricians; Dennis Mills, from the midlands region of the transport union; and Kate Losinska, from the Civil and Public Servants Association.
Eric Hammond OBE was general secretary of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU) from 1984 until 1992, when the union merged with the engineers to form the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union (AEEU). Hammond’s open support for Rupert Murdoch during the 1986 Wapping dispute caused outrage amongst trade unionists. News International closed down the offices of the Times, Sun and News of the World newspapers in Fleet Street and moved their entire operations to a new complex in Wapping. The printers were dismissed en masse and the print unions derecognized. Hammond had negotiated a secret single-union/no-strike agreement with News International. To the horror of the trade union movement, the mother of all sweetheart deals meant that all the new printers and even the journalists were now members of the EETPU. Wapping and other pro-business single-union agreements that the EETPU signed resulted in its expulsion from the TUC. The fall-out led to a split within the electricians’ union as a section broke away in disgust, to form the Electrical Plumbing Industrial Union (EPIU).
This was not an aberration but just one of many examples of the rightwing pro-business policies adopted by the leadership of the electricians’ union over many years. The biggest jewel in the crown of Hammond and the EETPU leaders was not Wapping but the Joint Industry Board (JIB), set up by the previous electricians’ leader, Frank Chapple. The JIB social-partnership model undoubtedly delivered high union membership levels and a steady stream of cash for the union machinery. Building friendly relations between the union and the employers was the key to the JIB’s success and such overt moderation, including its famous hostility to the 1984-5 miners’ strike, resulted in the union leadership receiving New Year’s honours from successive governments. From top to bottom, EETPU officials were expected to follow the leadership line. But even EETPU officials such as former London area official Frank Westerman admit:
‘The biggest contradiction in the industry is the JIB. We all know the history of how the union contributions used to be paid. Since its inception, it was opposed by the left but anyone involved knew it was definitely the best agreement.’3
While the JIB clearly has benefits for the union in terms of membership density and guaranteeing financial security, many electricians viewed it with suspicion. They argued that the prospect of assured subscriptions (without the need for active recruitment), so long as there was no disruption, meant that the union machinery tended to side with the employers, sometimes against the best interests of its own members.
Andrew Allison, a blacklisted electrician from Dundee, recalls the attitude of one EETPU union official following a dispute about pay at the Anchor Steel works in Scunthorpe in 1973:
‘I was called a professional industrial hijacker by the area official of the EETPU at the time. It was in the papers, he was on TV, this area official. I thought I was an electrician. We weren’t on strike, we were working normal, just not working any overtime and he wanted people to work 7 days and 12-hour shifts.’
EETPU officials supporting employers in their desire for electricians to work excessive hours is a theme that emerges from talking to workers. Steuart Merchant, from Dundee, was a shop steward while working for MF Kent under a JIB agreement at Aldermaston. The blacklisted electrician remembers a conversation with a site manager after the workforce agreed to stop working overtime during a dispute. Merchant recalls that he was told:
‘“Your union official is on the telephone for you, we phoned him on your behalf. You better talk to him.” The official says: “You’re in a serious situation, Steuart, they’re gonna sack you.” “It’s JIB rules – 39 hours a week – what’s serious about that?” “Do you want me to come to the site?”
I says, “If you’re coming to the site to tell us we have to work 66 hours then don’t bother.” He says, “OK – I won’t come down.” So I go back to the cabin and in 10 minutes’ time I got sacked. They sacked 50 of us.’4
The friendly relationship between the Electrical Contractors’ Association (the employers’ group within the JIB) and the EETPU grew ever stronger and in 1979 the Conservative minister Patrick Mayhew granted a unique dispensation. This exemption allowed the JIB to substitute its own dismissal procedure for unfair dismissals – this is the only such exemption order granted in any industry. The result was that any electrician registered with the JIB effectively lost their legal rights to take a claim for unfair dismissal to an Employment Tribunal but instead was legally obliged to use the JIB procedures. This exemption was no mere paperwork exercise, it was invoked on numerous occasions, especially when union activists had been dismissed or victimized, and it was condemned in parliament by Labour MPs.5
One of the positive outcomes of the JIB was that the electrical contracting sector of the industry remained predominantly directly employed, unlike the rest of the construction labour force. Yet, despite the avowed policy of the JIB in support of direct employment, in 1987 the EETPU and ECA set up their own employment agency, ESCA Services, co-owned by the employers and the union. The industry has seen widespread casualization since the late 1980s, with electricians forced to work for agencies that undercut the JIB rate. ESCA has been at the forefront of this process, becoming one of the largest agencies supplying temporary labour to the building industry.
According to blacklisted Dundee electrician and veteran campaigner against the abuses of the JIB, Francie Graham:
‘This ESCA agency made a lot of money, a lot of money. The organization, they had a national agreement and they had an agency. So they’ve now got the best of both worlds basically within their grasp.’6
Without direct employment with JIB companies, many electricians were often forced into working for the agencies, which made it easier for companies to dismiss those who stood up for their rights. Graham said:
‘You then had other agencies coming into the field of electrical contracting employment. A tap on the shoulder was enough to see you finished and on many occasions I’ve had that.’
The conflict of interest was obvious for all to see and this suspicion was only fuelled when blacklisted electricians discovered entries on files such as ‘is on ESCA’s books’. After decades of criticism, in 2002, Amicus and the Electrical Contractors’ Association sold ESCA Services to a newly incorporated company called 20-20 Recruitment based in Hampshire.7 In its last set of accounts ESCA recorded a turnover of £24 million.
Unions mentioned in blacklist files
The EETPU was not the only rightwing union in the industry at the time. UCATT, under the leadership of Albert Williams, was also seen as a voice of moderation in the TUC but behind the scenes faced serious allegations of corruption and ballot rigging. Full-time officials receiving payments in kind from building companies, including free holidays and numerous golfing days, were exposed in the trade press; even the Daily Mirror ran unfavourable stories.8
The Channel 4 Dispatches TV documentary, ‘The Ballot Fixers’, broadcast in May 1991, exposed how Taylor Woodrow and Costain had invited UCATT general secretary Albert Williams and other senior officials to Thames river cruises, social evenings and overnight accommodation at Tower Hotel, London. Now retired, Dudley Barrett was industrial relations manager for Costain at the time and admits footing the bill for a group of union people, but claims that he was asked to do so by one of the senior union figures:
‘I took him out and a whole group of his people out on a boat when I was on the Thames Barrier, treated them very nicely, including a very nice meal afterwards that cost us the best part of a thousand pound. Next thing I know I’m on television, although my name wasn’t mentioned, but Costain’s name was mentioned for spending over £1,000.’9
Barrett also claims to have subsidized the overseas visit of a senior UCATT official, paying for his hotels, meals and drinks bill.
Dispatches accused the UCATT leadership of ‘crudely fraudulent techniques to keep a stranglehold over the union’ and claimed that ballot rigging exposed ‘a network of corruption extending to the highest levels in the union’.
Albert Williams told the programme: ‘You show me some proof and we will act on it. Knowledge is one thing, proof is another but fine words butter no parsnips.’
When the blacklist was discovered, Albert Williams was recorded as the source of derogatory remarks on the TCA file of the respected and recently deceased UCATT executive council member Chris Murphy.
In the 1991 UCATT elections, an anti-corruption slate stood for the executive council. John Flavin, Peter Lenihan and Ron Doel stood against incumbents Jack Henry, John Rogers and Brian Veal – and beat them all. George Brumwell won the general secretary election. The UCATT executive council set up an inquiry under John Hand QC with a remit to investigate dubious practices of the recent past. The Hand Report was never published but a number of full-time officials resigned from the union prior to giving evidence or its completion. Many immediately took up positions within the EETPU, including Bernard McAuley, Roger Furmedge and Paul Corby, who was to head up the newly formed construction section.10 This was at a time when the EETPU was still expelled from the TUC and openly making sweetheart deals with employers. Paul Corby recalls:
‘I supported Jack Henry in the election. Eric Hammond rang me personally and offered me a national official’s job in the EETPU. I went after Dispatches but that had no consequence. Nothing to do with Wapping; that had happened before I joined. They were expelled because they refused to kowtow to certain TUC rules.’
It is hardly surprising that many blacklisted workers feel disquiet about information that appeared to come from EETPU officials. The electricians who joined the breakaway EPIU feel that they were particularly targeted. Every electrician working on a JIB contract was automatically signed up as a member of EETPU with their union subs paid by the employer. EPIU membership fees were paid via the branch or by direct debit, meaning that the employer did not need to know, yet entries relating to EPIU membership repeatedly appear on many blacklist files, even where no disputes ever took place.
The EETPU returned to the TUC fold when they merged with the rightwing engineers’ union to form the AEEU and later on became Amicus – but with the same core of full-time officials in the leadership of the construction section. After a few years the EPIU merged with the Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU). Both sides are now reunited since the merger of Amicus and TGWU to form Unite. Despite the name changes, entries on blacklist files continued to appear that raise questions about the role of some union officials. An analysis by the authors has discovered numerous examples, with those below representing just a small selection.
‘EETPU says NO’ [this appears on several blacklist files]
‘Reported by local EETPU official as militant’
‘All suspected of being EPIU members’
‘AEEU describes as f. evil as far as internal union dealings are concerned. Active at branch level.’
The Select Committee specifically asked Ian Kerr about these entries.
Ian Davidson: ‘The “EETPU says no” would seem to suggest that there had been some input from a trade union.’
Ian Kerr: ‘Yes; I agree with you. That would have been the case. It would have been a particular relationship with an HR manager in a particular area and that regional officer of the union or the union. I don’t know how you want to phrase it, but somewhere along the line that would have been discussed and somebody would have decided that that was information that we should have in our system.’
Graham Bowker is a Manchester electrician who was blacklisted by numerous companies. He describes how Amicus union official Roger Furmedge behaved towards EPIU activists on the flagship Marks and Spencer site in Manchester. Bowker and Steve Acheson had been elected as safety rep and shop steward. Bowker said:
‘Furmedge drafted a letter about the elections of me and Steve and gave it to every operative to sign it to say that they weren’t happy with our elections. This is a union official! Just after we’d been elected! He turns up, about 80 bloody A4 pieces of paper with word for word the same and just for the operatives to sign the bottom that they were unhappy with our elections. At the time, I had dual membership on there because I was cards in as a JIB member, which gave me Amicus status. At the time I was also a member of the EPIU. I think he was under orders. Because there was a history between the old EETPU and the EPIU which is very deep rooted the hatred from them to us.’
Entries relating to the appointment or election of union stewards appear on a number of files and often quote a union official. Some files simply record a situation and name a union official within the employers’ interpretation of events. Such as the file entry for prominent Unite construction activist Billy Spiers when at Heathrow:
2003 August
Put Forward by 
to T5 Employers’ representative body as a nominee for new position under recently agreed Major Project Agreement (MPA) of Designated site Representative (DSR) at Heathrow Terminal 5 for mechanical and electrical trades. Under the MPA unions have a duty to put forward their nominees CVs to the employers side of the project in question that then makes a decision whether to accept the persons nomination. The union (
for amicus) state that he is well versed in union procedures and has a good command of negotiating situations. Above is still an Amicus Executive Council member
3221/W main contact (
) given details 
will update on outcome.
NOTE: Also put forward by 
for T5 were: 
(mechanical fitter) as nomination for DSR
3221/W (
) comments that 
, to protect his reputation with employers, would not knowingly put an unsuitable (far left activist) person on site
3221 = AMEC
Paul Corby reflects:
‘I am absolutely satisfied to have nominated both Russ [Blakeley] and Billy for the roles upon the T5 project. They co-ordinated the election of other shop stewards on site. I have no comment regarding any employer comment made, as I had no discussions with John Conner over this and cannot be responsible for any second-hand employer comments made on these strange files. But there was absolutely fierce employer opposition to getting Billy Spiers placed on site.’11
Other files are open to a wider interpretation, such as the following entry relating to a major project in Liverpool:
8th Dec 2006 above put to 3288 as designated site rep (on basis that this was) preferable to ‘someone known with local credibility – could get anyone if done by an election’. T Hardacre of amicus ‘didn’t feel an election would be in their interests’.
3288 = NG Baileys
Tommy Hardacre was national officer for the construction section of Amicus, having replaced Paul Corby in 2005. Hardacre told the authors he is disgusted that secret files should be held containing second-hand information – he had not seen them until shown them by the authors. He disputes that he would not have wanted an election, saying the quotation is taken out of context.
Blacklisted workers turned away
The mid-1990s saw the start of an unprecedented 25-year building boom that was to last until the global financial crash in 2008. Millennium projects such as the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, the Millennium Dome, Royal Opera House and Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) created a shortage of skilled labour and a resulting increase in wage rates. But for skilled workers on the blacklist, even during the building boom, it was proving difficult to find work. Bowker explains what happened when he contacted Roger Furmedge after repeatedly being turned down for work:
‘He asked me a question, “Would you like to go on Manchester City Stadium?”
So I said, “Yeah, what about Steve Acheson?”
He said, “Well, between me and you, even if I wanted to, I couldn’t place him anywhere in the Northwest.”
Well, that set the alarm bells ringing. Something is totally wrong here. That simple statement by Roger Furmedge about Steve Acheson tells you there’s collusion going on.’
Later Bowker, Acheson, Tony Jones and Sean Keaveney were to meet up with Roger Furmedge again when the electricians were employed by DAF Electrical on the Piccadilly Gardens site in Manchester. The main contractor was Carillion, and Crown House (Carillion’s mechanical and electrical section) had subcontracted an electrical package to DAF. The very first entry on Graham Bowker’s blacklist file appears a week after he started working on the Carillion site:
EPIU
2003 April 22: During w/c 14th April 2003 above was on site with sub-contractor Daf Electrical (Gloucester based) at 3271/81s Piccadilly Gardens redevelopment in Manchester.
Two weeks later the following entry appeared:
2003 May 6
Applied to 3271/81 at Piccadilly Argent Redevelopment, Manchester along with Stephen Acheson, Sean Keaveney, Tony Jones and Jonathan Russell. (see separate refs for all).
Main contact (LK) given details. Co. already has the above plus the other 4 on site.
3271 = Carillion. LK = Liz Keates, Head of HR for Carillion Group.
On 16 May 2003, DAF sacked 11 electricians from the Piccadilly site: Sean Keaveney, John Russell, Terry Moran, Mick Shortall, Kevin McGowan, Andy Hardman, Chris Donahue and Andy Baxter, Graham Bowker, Steve Acheson and Tony Jones. They then spent between four months and a year picketing the site in an attempt to win reinstatement with the support of local trade unionists, including Brian Bamford and Derek Pattison. All of the sacked workers applied to an Employment Tribunal. All of their names were added to the blacklist. An entry on Acheson’s blacklist file says:
2003 June
Amicus – AEEU
Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester dispute
Involves EPIU members
Roger Furmedge of amicus-AEEU was required to support the 5 union members. DAF then issued Redundancy Notices to the 5 and the men went on strike. Roger Furmedge repudiated the mens’ [sic] actions – DAF sacked the men.
Current situation: Picket on gate still
Thirteen months after their sacking some of the blacklisted electricians won claims for unfair dismissal for trade-union activities, while others were again defeated by the vagaries of the employment law system. One memorable cross-examination by Sue Machin, representing the electricians, was reported in the rank-and-file union newspaper North West Cowboy at the time:
‘“Amicus is our union!” cried Michael Fahey from the witness box.
This had Ms Machin on her feet “Your union? The employer’s union?”
“Yes, we pay the dues for the men,” replied Fahey.’13
The four workers weren’t just sacked for being trade-union members but specifically for being EPIU/TGWU members. The written judgment goes on to state on more than one occasion that the reason that the company was aware that the electricians were union activists was because of information supplied to them by Roger Furmedge. The written judgment pours scorn on the evidence of DAF director David Fahey that he was unaware that the electricians were TGWU members by finding: ‘It was more likely than not that Mr Furnage [sic] told him that Mr Acheson, a well known “troublemaker” and TGWU member, was on site.’
At the remedies hearing to decide the level of compensation, DAF director Michael Fahey’s written statement says:
‘I attended a meeting with Dave Fahey on 9th May [2003] at which Alan Swift from Crown House Engineering and Liz Keates [from] Carillion’s HR department were also present. Alan told us that nobody from my site would be allowed onto CMMC [building site] and that the claimants were well known in the Manchester area as militants who had caused massive problems on other sites.’
When Michael Fahey was pressed by Judge Keevash, he admitted that Roger Furmedge was also at the meeting.
Following the 9 May meeting between the contracting companies and the Amicus official, DAF wrote to Crown House and Carillion on 21 May 2003 stating that:
‘As a consequence of the action on site we are looking at ways of tightening our selection procedure and can confirm that, with immediate effect, any potential employee will be thoroughly screened before any offer of employment is made.’
Both Carillion and Crown House were then major users of The Consulting Association. The Tribunal’s written judgment interprets this letter as DAF informing Crown House ‘that it would in effect screen for trade union membership’. This was in the public domain five years before The Consulting Association was raided. Roger Furmedge has been repeatedly contacted by the authors to provide an explanation about the various incidents noted above but has declined to make any comment.
That the EPIU was targeted by officials of the EETPU was not disputed by two ex-officials. Jim Simms was a former national secretary for construction within the Manufacturing Science and Finance union before it merged with Amicus, and was a signatory to the NAECI agreement. He currently sits as a panel member on Employment Tribunals and is employed as the industrial relations officer for Beaver Management Services Limited (BMS). His current role as an industrial-relations officer for a major employment agency means that some in the union movement have questioned the reliability of his testimony.14 Simms told the authors:
‘The EPIU was more or less blacklisted en bloc – they’d never admit it but it was civil war between AEEU and EPIU. The employers obviously supported the EETPU and AEEU because they were business friendly. The London scene was notorious and everyone just let them get on with it. The argument was that with the agency branch and working rule 17, there were thousands of people where the employer paid their contributions and so therefore millions of pounds were coming into the union on subs and whatever the arrangements were, it was like Dodge City and the Wild West.’
The full-time official responsible for the London area within the EETPU and later the AEEU was Frank Westerman. He has a blacklist file which was started by the Economic League in 1972 when he was an elected convenor on the Tate and Lyle HQ beside the Thames. His file finishes in 1986 when he became a union full-time official. Westerman considered the JIB the central reason for the dispute with the EPIU:
‘The EPIU opposed it, even tried stuff in Parliament with MPs, so there was a constant to and fro. As an officer of the union, I would oppose the EPIU, I would oppose the T&G and UCATT. The important thing for us was always the agreement.’15
In 1992, Westerman was the union official responsible for the Vascroft site in Kensington on behalf of the EETPU. At the very moment that TGWU and UCATT reps were dismissed from site, Vascroft cut a deal with the EETPU, who appointed a ‘steward’ from outside the job who wouldn’t cause the company any trouble. Chris Clarke, the sacked TGWU shop steward, won his claim for unfair dismissal due to trade-union activities and said: ‘That business with Westerman was as cynical an operation as I have seen in 40 years in the labour movement.’
Westerman remembers what happened at the time of the Vascroft crane occupation:
‘One of the trade suppliers had an agreement with the EETPU and Vascroft said they would have an agreement too. At the time it was open warfare, there is no other way to describe it. There were lots of things that went on at that time that people should not be proud of. That was nothing to do with blacklisting. All that fraternal stuff that goes on at conferences, when you get out on site it’s a different ball game. Vascrofts was high profile but there were loads of things like that. It used to happen but it was more about membership. I didn’t do anything deliberate. There were things that happened that shouldn’t have happened, dozens of naughty things that went on.’
Jubilee Line and Terminal 5
Another group of workers who have good reason to demand answers were the electricians blacklisted after the Jubilee Line. The main electrical contractor on the project was Drake and Scull, which subscribed to The Consulting Association. The Jubilee Line was to become one of the most successfully unionized construction projects of the past 20 years. When the project was completed, the names and national insurance numbers of every electrician working for Drake and Scull were circulated by the head of human resources, Sheila Knight.16 Scores were also added to The Consulting Association blacklist. But it was an identical entry that appears multiple times on the blacklist files of union activists who worked on the JLE that caused the most outrage:
Employed by Drake & Sculls at Jubilee Line. Was actively involved in the issues which arose during the term of the contract.
Advice is to take up references on previous employers on application.
NOTE: Known to have worked at the Jubilee Line should this not appear on his application form.
NOTE: BUT DO NOT DIVULGE
Above information arose from liaison between union, contractor and managing agent at J/L
The entry is credited to Alan Audley, main contact for Vinci, who was vice-chair of The Consulting Association when it was raided in 2009. Audley, now retired, lives a few miles from the Fiddlers Ferry power plant site – a scene of many industrial disputes. When visited by the authors, he looked tanned and trim, having just come back from an ocean cruise. He refused to answer any questions about his role with TCA.
The full-time union official for Drake & Scull electricians was again Frank Westerman. He is adamant that he never heard of TCA nor of any employers being involved in an organization like it:
‘I never knew of that Association, I never knew of their existence. I never had any contact with them. As far as the union is concerned, I don’t think anybody was involved in helping this Association. I don’t know what I said to Alan Audley. I had hardly anything to do with him. He was on the employers’ committee. He might big himself up by saying Westerman says “he is a bag of shit” or something. At the end of the day, someone still has to go and meet the employer and make the deal – and that was my job.’
After the JLE, Westerman went on to be the Amicus union official on the two biggest projects in London: the new Wembley stadium and Heathrow Terminal 5 (T5).
Michael Anderson was an electrician from northwest London with a young family at the time and, having worked on the JLE, found it virtually impossible to find work on Wembley and T5, despite gaining support from his local MP. Anderson’s redacted blacklist file has the following entry:
2005 Oct 26: Information received by 3271/81 site manager at Heathrow T5 that the above is ‘not recommended’ by amicus. This information relayed from site manager to 3221/X JC
2005 Oct 28: Further Information – REFER BEFORE DIVULGING via 3223MA
Above information came from 
of amicus. Beaver Management Services (BMS) is aware also
2005 Oct 28th via 3286 IC
states above is not an activist, but a construction worker who would kn ow how to put pressure on an employer. Someone that may be noted because of his knowledge of his rights under the JIB. 
knows the above & would recommend ‘being careful’ – not a militant
3271 = Crown House/Laing O’Rourke; 3221/X JC = AMEC/John Connor (main contact); 3223MA = Balfour Kilpatrick/Michael Aird (main contact); 3286 IC = Emcor/Iain Coates (main contact)
In just two days in October 2005, four separate blacklisting firms operating at T5 forwarded information about Anderson to The Consulting Association and all four main contacts name the Amicus union official as the source of the information. Anderson suffered prolonged periods of unemployment in the wake of this and eventually emigrated to Ireland with his young family. Frank Westerman was the Amicus official responsible for T5 and when questioned about these entries by the authors, claims that he was attempting to assist Anderson in finding a job on the project.
Phil Willis, a blacklisted steel erector, was elected as Amicus shop steward at the Terminal 5 project. The following entry appears in his unredacted blacklist file, which was used as evidence in his successful Employment Tribunal:
June 2003: With Severfield Reeve (owner Watson Steel) at Heathrow terminal 5 as a shop steward / convener. Sacked by Severfield Reeve and subsequently reinstated. Claimed unfair dismissal for Trade Union activities.
According to Frank W: will sit in background & ‘wind up’ in other forums, is very clever, covers himself well.
SOURCE: 3231 M.C. (D.O’S)
3231 = Kier; D.O’S = Danny O’Sullivan, Kier main contact and chair of The Consulting Association 2000-01
In 2007 another entry states:
2007 Oct: UPDATE from 3290 R.B.
Above applied to 3290 14-9-07 for Isle of Grain LNG Contract. Has had recent successful claim at I.T. for discrimination on grounds of trade union membership. Wife, Cathy Willis, is similarly militant minded. Phil Willis is the leading light or possibly chairman of the erectors group, working from within UNITE – amicus at present.
This information from a T.U. officer source within UNITE – amicus (FW)
3290 = CB&I; RB = Ron Barron
Whether deliberate or not, the entries suggest that Frank Westerman was having conversations about the union activities of Willis and Anderson with construction employers.
Frank Westerman now lives in Canada and carries out industrial-relations consultancy work for major construction firms, some of whom subscribed to TCA. When questioned about the reason why his name appears as the source of information on so many blacklist files, he replied:
‘You’ve got to put this in context. If you see that and you didn’t know how the industry operated you’d have a lot of concerns. I’m meeting people day in day out, year in year out, for 25 years. I was the main lead official in the London area. Anything that happened, I was in the middle of it.
Them conversations happened all the time. I’m involved with talking to people about people and if they write it down what can I do about it? I’m quite upset about it because I was blacklisted myself and my family suffered in the Seventies and Eighties.’
Phil and Cathie Willis said of Frank Westerman:
‘We settled on the belief that he wouldn’t knowingly do any harm to his members. There were often times when he trod a very shaky path between representing members and keeping the employers on side but I don’t think he ever went so far as to deliberately give information away that could be damaging. The reason we do not believe that Frank handed over any deliberate information on members, is that the information contained within the blacklisted person’s files was very inaccurate. If the information had come from Frank it would have been spot on.’17
Michael Anderson was less inclined to give the ex-Amicus official turned industrial-relations consultant the benefit of the doubt:
‘If a union official makes statements like these to employers he knows exactly what’s going to happen to the union member’s job prospects. An apprentice would know not to drop names and details of who said what at union meetings to management, yet here was an experienced full-time official doing exactly that. He wasn’t naive, he knew all about blacklisting, so what were his motives?’18
How do union names get into the files?
Brian Higgins is another worker who has union officials quoted on his blacklist file. Some of the last entries in his redacted file state:
2002 Jan 17th:
Report by 
that the above is to be a delegate at 2002 UCATT Biennial Conference in Bournemouth
further commented: ‘but people don’t take any notice of him now’
2003 Dec:
Comments from another union’s official is [that] B Higgins and colleagues are involved in the site issues at Wembley
The entry dated 17 January 2002, relates to elections that took place in December 2001. The results were circulated to UCATT branches in January 2002. They were not published on the website or in the union magazine at the time. When Higgins’ unredacted file arrived, the name of a current senior UCATT official was disclosed as the recorded source of the information. Higgins complained to the UCATT General Secretary, Steve Murphy, who personally visited the retired bricklayer’s house in Northampton.
This meeting led to an internal investigation into the conduct of UCATT London regional secretary Jerry Swain. The details were never made public but it found that there was no case to answer and the UCATT executive council took no action. Higgins said:
‘The response of UCATT has been a downright disgrace. They should hold an independent inquiry conducted by a legal expert, who has no connection to any union, into all aspects of The Consulting Association, including and especially the collusion of some union officials with the blacklist.’19
In September 2013 Murphy wrote to Higgins stating:
‘The Executive Council once again reiterated its view that unless there is some concrete evidence that UCATT officials were implicated in blacklisting building workers it would be futile to have an independent inquiry.’
In researching this book the authors made numerous written and verbal requests over many months, directly and via intermediaries to UCATT for a response to questions raised by information on blacklist files and concerned union activists. General secretary Steve Murphy gave an interview, but subsequently both the union as a whole and its officials individually have refused to provide any substantial comment for publication.
Although there is no evidence that some rightwing union officials deliberately provided information with the intention of blacklisting some of their more leftwing members, information has undoubtedly found its way from union officials to the TCA files. The blacklist was an open secret in the building industry. Stewart Emms, a UCATT official between 1992 and 2002, recalls: ‘I was quite sure that blacklisting was going on; other officials did too: without a doubt.’ Emms’ own blacklist file even contains a copy of a letter he wrote to the Morning Star in 1999, which observes:
‘I have been finding over the past few years that there has been a general move by employers to sack shop stewards and safety representatives, because they know can get away with it. The union will probably threaten the employer with an industrial tribunal – which will get the sacked steward or safety rep a few bob. But the employer will gladly pay this to break trade union organization and, ultimately, the steward concerned will be blacklisted.’
Everyone knew it existed and union conferences regularly discussed it; so who did union officials think was actually responsible for the blacklisting? Blacklists do not compile themselves, information needs to be gleaned from somewhere by someone. Who would be doing all this, if not the industrial-relations managers of the big contractors?
Paul Corby admits he was aware that some industrial-relations managers were involved:
‘When it was the Economic League we knew who they were. Dudley Barrett from Costain used to boast about blacklisting people. I used to sing Irish rebel songs at conference. I was put on the list by Dudley Barrett. He told me about it.’
But Corby mirrors the response of many officials the authors have spoken to:
‘I never blacklisted anyone. I haven’t deliberately or inadvertently colluded with blacklisting. We knew about the Economic League but it was a secret society. I’d never heard of The Consulting Association until the day I heard about the raid. We didn’t know they were doing that. Not in a co-ordinated way. We thought it might be a company basis.’
The authors do not accuse any union official of any illegality or deliberate collusion with blacklisting members of their own or other unions. But the names of officials do appear as the source of information on TCA documentation and to ask how those names arrived on the files is a perfectly legitimate question to which blacklisted workers deserve an answer.
A knife and forker
Union officials in every industry need to have some kind of working relationship with their opposite number on the employer side. This may involve occasionally having a working lunch to discuss issues – a ‘knife and forker’ in the jargon. But there is a big step from professional courtesy to accepting hospitality such as evening meals, hotel accommodation and tickets to major sporting events.
The Goring Hotel in Belgravia is adjacent to Buckingham Palace. The luxury hotel has welcomed heads of state, presidents and royalty. Its own website describes how ‘the great and the good, the famous and the infamous have walked the corridors and enjoyed the sophistication and discretion of this great hotel’. Perhaps it was the ‘discretion’ that was the attraction, because, despite having their own offices, this opulent venue is also where the JIB held its functions and where directors of blacklisting firms met union officials from the EETPU, AEEU, Amicus and UCATT for formal and sometimes less formal negotiations. Paul Corby, Frank Westerman and Jerry Swain among others have all attended meetings at the Goring, although all claim to have only visited in an official union capacity.
The Naval and Military is a gentlemen’s club for military personnel. It is a few yards from Chatham House and round the corner from the Institute of Directors. A cannon greets you at the entrance, while its walls are lined with pictures of generals and admirals. The dress code is ‘formal and conventional, business suit’ or ‘military dress’. One of its members is Stephen Quant, a former British army infantry officer and one-time TCA chair while employed by Skanska. Quant is quite open about the fact that he invited union officials to dine at his club. He explained to the authors how he used to develop friendly relationships with union officials.
Quant: ‘You can normally make a deal with anybody provided those people had what you would call a constructive manner. Outside factors are often what caused people to take stands. If you had a relationship with people that is ongoing, they are less susceptible to outside friends and outside influences.’
Authors: Did people on the trade union side have that same view?
Quant: [long pause]. ‘Some people were reasonable and some people were unreasonable. Many of the people on the trade union were very reasonable and it was very easy in the days when there was Amicus and before that the EEPTU. They were quite sensible.
‘I had close relationships with UCATT, particularly a bloke called Jeremy Swain in London. I first met Swain in 1991, when he was just a regional officer, so I’ve known him for 20 years.’
Authors: How does that relationship work? Is it always just professional or over time does it become more than that?
Quant: ‘There are people who it is just business. There are people you can have quite sensible relationships with. Many of the people I …. Well, I don’t need to go into that [laughs a little nervously]. Many of the people I have no problem about them. I’ve brought several of them here for a meal, for instance.’
Despite requests for an interview, Jerry Swain was not prepared to provide a public response to questions from the authors about this statement by Quant.20
It should be noted that Stephen Quant is named in a High Court legal action currently being taken by UCATT. The union issued a statement to the authors via their solicitors, saying: ‘We are surprised that the account of a serial blacklister is given credibility.’21
It was not just in London that the cosy relationships appear to have flourished. Barry Scragg, a UCATT official in the Northwest for over 20 years and himself a blacklisted ex-bricklayer, identified two officials who attended social events in the evening and weekends with industrial-relations officers.
‘Jimmy Woods over the years has accepted hospitality from national and regional companies, such as weekends away at the Rugby League Cup Finals as a guest of AMEC. Likewise he has been the guest of regional companies in their hospitality suite at Aintree races. George Guy was also taken out for dinners or for drinks by a number of companies. This practice, in my opinion, was unhealthy. Alan Audley of Vinci, formerly Norwest Holst, was a regular visitor and host.’22
George Guy held the position of Northwest regional secretary before taking on the role of general secretary (pro-tem) and then national officer for the union before he retired in the summer of 2014. Jimmy Woods took over the position of UCATT Northwest regional secretary from Guy and has also recently retired. Woods has a TCA blacklist file and there is no suggestion that he was involved in blacklisting, nor does his name appear on any documentation relating to TCA. However, the fact that even activists who were themselves blacklisted when working on site were prepared to socialize with employers once they took up the role of full-time union officers is an indication of how pervasive the practice was.
Neither officer was prepared to provide a direct quotation about these specific allegations but both strongly rebut any suggestions of acting illegally or against union rules.
Not all union officials agree with the need to hold meetings with company industrial-relations managers in fancy restaurants. Lou Lewis, blacklisted carpenter from the Barbican dispute, eventually became UCATT London regional secretary and on one occasion told the regional committee,
‘Don’t let anyone ever tell you that’s just how the industry operates. I have never been for a meal with any of these people in over 20 years working for the union.’
Former UCATT official and blacklisted joiner Stewart Emms reflected how his refusal to accept hospitality from managers often caused a stir:
‘My problem was that when I had to negotiate with employers and their industrial-relations officers, I could never get into this going out and having a free beer with them. If I ever met them it was always, “I’ll get this, Stewart,”
“No, you won’t!”
I never wanted any of my members to think I was accepting stuff from the employers. I remember George Brumwell once told me, “sometimes you get more from sugar than salt”.
Some officials went out for meals with the bosses but I never wanted to accept anything.’23
Emms, who won a claim for unfair dismissal after being sacked by UCATT, claims that some union officials from Yorkshire Region attended cricket matches at Headingley with employers; while accepting bottles of whiskey and attending Christmas meals with employers was an annual practice in which he also refused to participate. Emms reflects: ‘I’m not surprised some officials’ names are on the files. I think some of the officials got too close. Did they ever go out socializing in the evening with their senior stewards?’
It may be that union officers believed they were invited to these hotels and social events because they were genuine friends of these company directors. In fact, Dudley Barrett, who attended blacklisting meetings on behalf of Costain, claims to have been a close personal friend of ex-UCATT general secretary Albert Williams and says he still regularly plays golf with ex-UCATT executive council member Jack Henry. Or perhaps going out socializing with employers was just how the system had always worked. Even if the entries on many of the blacklist files attributed to union officials are due to loose tongues rather than deliberate collusion, this smacks of massive naivety. The industrial-relations managers were doing their job. They were playing the union officials in order to glean information on behalf of the company. Not to realize what was happening was, at the very least, inept.
From the point of view of blacklisted workers with a union official named on their file, the evidence of after-hours socializing in plush hotels demands an explanation. Failure to come clean at least gives the impression of potential collusion.
Bulk membership
However, the issue of potentially dubious practices by some union officials is not something only raised by disgruntled activists. In 2000, George Brumwell, UCATT general secretary, told his union conference:
‘Alan Ritchie [UCATT Scottish secretary at the time] took a big subbie [subcontractor] from London to the airport and he threw a brown envelope full of notes and said, ‘My office has slipped a couple of grand in here.’ Alan thought he was joking but when he saw the envelope he nearly passed out. He took it back. Now I wonder how many don’t take it back?’24
While rank-and-file activists were repeatedly dismissed and refused work by the industrial-relations managers, the relationship between the higher echelons of the unions and the same individuals was often somewhat different. Developing a friendly relationship with contractors was seen as part of the job role for union officials. When these relationships became very friendly, union officials were able to increase membership by recruiting the whole workforce of the companies en masse rather than just relying on recruiting individual workers.
Jonathan Jeffries, currently a TUC tutor, originally worked for TGWU in Gibraltar before joining the London region UCATT office team in the 1990s. He explains how, at the time, union recruitment often involved recruiting the company rather than the workers.
‘The contractor would suddenly bring in all these membership forms filled in, in a bundle and then deduct the subs. This isn’t the usual situation where an individual worker decides to join the union or a shop steward approaches them and recruits them. This is their employer saying you have to be in the union. I saw this happening because I had to do some of the processing, having previously worked in the membership department. I met some people who were hard-as-nails East End crooks. There was one of them that came into the union office who could have been a 1930s gangster in his pinstripe suit.’
This way of doing things very often results in workers being signed up to the union without their knowledge. Relying on large contractors to supply bulk membership means they often end up holding considerable influence over union finances. It is easy to conceive how playing off different unions against each other or withholding subscriptions could result in officials acting in a way amenable to the employer. Images from old gangster movies spring to mind once again.
The practice of friendly contractors providing certain union officials with paper membership, often without the knowledge of the workers themselves, was so well known, that it has been repeatedly acknowledged by senior officials of the construction unions. In 1991, Dominic Hehir, blacklisted painter and former UCATT regional secretary, was asked by Dispatches why any employer would pay block membership fees to the union without supplying the names and addresses of the supposed members.
Dominic Hehir: ‘He feels that it would obviously suit him and there is a possibility that some employers may think that UCATT is a union that suits them and they want to see it keep afloat, so they would send a cheque off to General Office.’
Dispatches: ‘That’s buying industrial peace.’
Dominic Hehir: ‘That’s the way they would see it.’
This was acknowledged as late as September 2012 when Unite’s Gail Cartmail gave evidence to the Select Committee:
‘Sometimes employers change tactics. We have a prominent site in London, with Crossrail, and there is evidence of a contractor company suddenly having a conversion on the road to Damascus and paying the trade-union contributions for its workforce. I raise this because it is another way of sidelining genuine trade-union involvement and sending the message that, “We will pay your contributions but we don’t expect you to play a role”.’
At the 1996 UCATT conference, executive council member Tony Farrell said:
‘The executive council and the general secretary are not prepared to accept the practice that exists in some regions where subcontractors would give recruits to full-time officials and then cease paying for a similar amount of employees. That is not recruitment, that is a mafia tactic.’25
Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of Farrell, this tactic appears to have actually been part of the training given to some union officials. Steve Hedley, current RMT assistant general secretary, worked temporarily for UCATT in the 1990s and recalls:
‘I was employed by UCATT as a development officer supposedly for one year. On my second week I was given training by UCATT official Jerry Swain. This training consisted of going to the office of a subcontractor called O’Keefe and negotiating a number of membership forms that the subcontractor would fill in and give to the union. At no time were any workers talked to or even approached. I was told I had to get members in this fashion. I told Swain to “fuck off”. In subsequent weeks and months I recruited members properly by going site to site and talking to workers in the canteen, probably recruiting around ten a week. Other officials brought back bundles of forms from subcontractors.’
Jerry Swain disputes the incident but has declined to comment on the record in response to this allegation.
The exceptionally cosy relationships between certain union officials and building employers resulted in the very industrial-relations managers responsible for blacklisting union members being invited to attend union conferences. During the day, the main contacts would take notes in the conference hall on speeches made by delegates or leaflets distributed. The details would later appear on blacklist files.
At 1998 June Biennial Conference gave short talk:- ‘Now is the time to get the wages up’
SOURCE: 3280 (main contact A.L.)
3280 = John Mowlem – now Carillion (JM) Ltd; AL = Alf Lucas
During the evening the blacklisters attended the official receptions and were free with their money in the bar. Stephen Quant was a regular at both UCATT and Amicus conferences, with his late-night antics in the bar described by one observer as ‘holding court’ with union officials amongst his entourage. When interviewed for this book, Quant admitted attending conferences and claimed never to have had any problems other than from ‘the loonies’. Paul Corby, however, remembers naming Quant in a conference speech after the industrial-relations manager had spent the previous evening arguing that no workers should be directly employed. Alan Audley of Vinci was a guest at the UCATT conference in Scarborough as late as 2012, three years after his company’s involvement in blacklisting was known.
Following the discovery of the blacklist, there were renewed calls for industrial-relations officers to be banned from union conferences. In 2013 the UCATT executive council announced that, from 2014, industrial-relations managers would no longer be invited to conference.
Steve Acheson v George Guy
In addition to the blacklist files, other documents relating to blacklisting written by Ian Kerr have come to light. During the preparation for their High Court claim, Sean Curran and Liam Dunne from Guney Clark and Ryan solicitors visited the home of Ian Kerr on two separate occasions. They took witness statements and were also supplied with a number of documents that the ICO had failed to seize during their raid in 2009. Among the documents was a page of notes in Ian Kerr’s own handwriting from 6 March 2009, the day the blacklisting story broke in the media. The note records telephone conversations that Ian Kerr had with a number of the main contacts throughout the day and comments on the various press reports.
On Saturday 23 February 2013, the Blacklist Support Group held a meeting in Jack Jones House, in Liverpool. The meeting was chaired by Roy Bentham, with Steve Acheson and Liam Dunne as the main speakers. During his speech, Acheson was continuously barracked by senior members of UCATT, who accused him of making allegations about union collusion without any real evidence and asked him to name names. In response, Steve held up the handwritten note by Kerr and said: ‘If you want me to name names, I will: the name that appears on this note is George Guy.’ Acheson then read out this section from the Ian Kerr note:
AA met Geo Guy UCATT NW Reg Sect + 2 others – who thought a storm in a tea cup
G Guy: would you employ St Acheson? ‘I bloody wouldn’t’ (St Acheson IT claimant)
We’ve known for years – just a question of when it would happen.
AA Unions will have a problem now as they will get on site & cause problems
AA = Alan Audley, head of industrial relations at Vinci & Vice Chair of The Consulting Association
As might be expected, following this revelation the discussion was quite heated between those who called for UCATT to launch an immediate investigation and the others in attendance who defended George Guy. An ongoing dispute in the northwest region of UCATT has spilled over into claim and counter claim. UCATT threatened to pursue a claim against Acheson for slander, although this has never materialized.
George Guy vigorously denies the allegations and has issued the following statement:
‘I have never discussed Mr Acheson with Mr Audley or anyone else. I have a statement from Mr Audley confirming this… I have never made any comments about Mr Acheson at a regional council meeting and the minutes will show that. I have never discussed the employability of any construction worker, if they were a member or not, with any employer. I have never knowingly ever given any information to anyone which could be used to blacklist anyone.’26
Union internal inquiries
Both Unite and UCATT have carried out internal investigations into possible collusion by union officials, although these took place using only fragmentary documentation before either union had been given access to the full unredacted TCA database as part of the High Court litigation. Some people refused to be interviewed for the internal union investigations and some witnesses only gave evidence under tight preconditions which may have brought their reliability into question.27 No past or present officials of either union were named or disciplined following the internal investigations, which at the time found there was either no case to answer or insufficient evidence to take any further action.
However, Gail Cartmail, herself from the print sector and therefore with first-hand knowledge of the EETPU, later told the Blacklist Support Group AGM in November 2011 that union collusion may have taken place in the past, ‘it shouldn’t have happened’ and offered the blacklisted workers present an apology. While this may not have satisfied every blacklisted worker present, the public admission and the wholehearted support she gave to Frank Morris on Crossrail has brought Cartmail a considerable degree of respect from the notoriously hard-to-please construction section of Unite.
Cartmail later told the authors:
‘If there have been failings of union officials in the past, then all can see how Unite has recognized those failings and responded to the magnificent campaign led by the Blacklist Support Group.’28
Meanwhile, in an interview with the authors, UCATT general secretary Steve Murphy promised a ‘warts and all’ inquiry, which is the stated policy of the union, though only once it had seen all the files. Asked if he would be surprised if the records showed evidence of union officials supplying names for the blacklist Murphy said: ‘Yes I would. Yes, I think any of us would.’29
It is transnational building companies that set up and funded the blacklist, and that victimized construction workers. It was an anti-union blacklist. The Consulting Association scandal provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the industrial relations in the building industry. But that involves changing the way the trade unions have operated as well as the employers. The authors repeat that they make no accusations of illegality or deliberate collusion with blacklisting against any union official. However, the evidence suggests that at the very least, a culture developed among a cohort of union officials and industrial-relations managers that has led to a flow of information to the blacklist files, even if that was inadvertent.
The virtual conveyor belt of union officials immediately taking up posts as senior industrial-relations managers or consultants with construction firms after leaving office adds to the impression of a cosy club. Paul Corby, Jim Simms and Frank Westerman are all working as industrial-relations managers or consultants. Brian Boyd, AEEU official at Pfizers, left Unite in 2011 and only weeks later was representing employers in talks with his former employer at ACAS during the BESNA dispute. Jim Thomas, ex-Unite officer, is currently industrial-relations manager for Laing O’Rourke and involved in disputes with the construction unions over lack of access to the Francis Crick site in Euston, the Cheesegrater in the City of London and Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool.
On leaving employment as national president of UCATT, John Flavin, blacklisted himself in the 1980s, started acting on behalf of employers, even representing firms in employment tribunals against the union. He is now working on industrial relations for blacklisting firm Laing O’Rourke and was involved in the Hinkley Point negotiations as well as at the Olympic site. A party to celebrate his 40 years in the industry was held in Mayfair, and included high-profile guests from many of the big contractors and global property developers, as well as UCATT officials, including Jerry Swain.30
Let the clean-up begin
To imagine that all union officials caught up in the blacklisting scandal suddenly changed the way they operated the day after The Consulting Association database was discovered would be extremely naïve. In 2013, four years after the blacklist had been discovered, two academics from the University of Westminster published research into industrial relations on the London 2012 construction site. As part of the study, six union officials were interviewed. All are quoted anonymously but one official was entirely happy to go on record referring to blacklisting on the Olympics as ‘one of the myths of the site’.31 It would appear that some officials, at least, still prefer the assurances of the major contractors over the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of blacklisted workers.
The sooner the trade unions accept that there have been failings in the past, the sooner the clean-up process can begin.