Bladdergate

Some of you didn't believe us last week. Didn't you spot the headlines - "Business as usual" and "Things can only get Bitter"? Well, the nightmare has become reality: LAZARUS Ramsbladder is back.

Amidst shocking scenes at today's inaugural NEC, with The President refusing to chair the meeting claiming it was unconstitutional, Reamsbottom delivered his legal advice that he was PCS GS now and for ever and ever and ever, so there.

The meeting in the boardroom, now chaired by TED EUERS, recessed to allow legal opinion to be sought by Godrich and Serwotka with the TROT element endlessly chanting "This is not a meeting, this is not an NEC". After a break, the meeting reconvened in room 4.4, with the chanting enhanced by a fraternal invasion of the NEC by CHRIS BOFF and his mates who were holding a Land Registry meeting next door.

With no further legal advice forthcoming, the meeting adopted Standing Orders and decided the composition of the sub-committees - curiously, all to be chaired by MODERATI except for those reserved for the Senior Veep who seems to have a foot in the camp anyway.

While all this turmoil was going on, MONTY PATERSON'S PCS computer network decided to take a sickie, depriving everyone of communication. An unfortunate coincidence.

It's beginning to look as if Janices best bet is to make a Presidential ruling that the NEC results are void, recall the outgoing NEC where she should survive a challenge to the ruling (2/3 majority) and reach for a very good lawyer. Note the date of Barry's advice - the day before Conference.

A poster to altpcs wrote:

"Janice read a prepared statement outlining that the gathering was in direct
cotravention of principle rules 7.19 and 8.3, basically meaning that as Chair
she had a right to be consulted prior to any meetings being agreed.

Reamsbottom took control, with the aid of the Moderates placed Ted Euers in
charge of the gathering. Euers and Coldbeck from IRG voted with Mods, with
all other IR NEC members voting against.

With Euers in the "chair", the gathering then carried decisions on

1) Revision of Standing orders
2) Appointments to all Sub Committees, with the Mods occupying all the places
3) Read a letter from a QC, which gave support to Moderates view that
election of Mark Serwotka was unconstitutional and perhaps unlawful, as BR
should have remained as GS as agreed at time of merger. Reamsbottom
"authorised" to negotiate with Mark on taking up Full time officer post at HQ
or leaving the employ of PCS altogether and returning to the Civil Service.

As this was going on, LU Comrades and people from IRG were making it
abundantly plain that the gathering was unconstitutional, unlawful and in no
way could be construed as an NEC meeting. The mods went to another room,
followed by the others who continued to oppose what was happening. Meeting
adjourned."

Meeting reconvened with Euers and Mods agreeing what had gone previously and
setting next meeting for 19/06/02."

MODERATI PRESS RELEASE 23/05/02
(largely regurgitated by the SUN & GUARDIAN on 24/05/02)

MODERATES RESCUE WHITEHALL'S BIGGEST TRADE UNION

The 280,000 strong Public & Commercial Services Union (PCS), Britain's biggest civil service trade union, today announced that general secretary Barry Reamsbottom would remain in post until his retirement in April 2004.

Amidst extraordinary scenes at the Union headquarters in Clapham Junction, where hard left NEC members shouted and chanted at Moderates, and tried to prevent the meeting going ahead or taking any decisions, the new Moderate majority agreed papers setting up procedures and committees for their 2 year term of office. It was their intention to thwart the Moderate NEC majority and mount campaigns against reform of public services.

Initially, hard left president Janice Godrich, a prominent supporter of the Scottish Socialist Party, refused to take the chair of the meeting or allow it to proceed. Her supporters then did all they could to wreck the meeting, and followed the majority into another room when they tried to discuss the issues calmly, and tried to shout the meeting down again.

But of major significance was the decision to agree recommendations based on senior counsel's legal opinion, that Barry Reamsbottom should continue to serve as general secretary until 2004, as was originally envisaged when the union was created in 1998.

The legal opinion, from Alan Pardoe Q.C., included the following points to that at the time of the merger, each of the General Secretaries of the PTC and CPSA was appointed for 5 years unless he reached normal retirement date during that period and that each was entitled if still in office at the end of that period to continue in office without standing for re-election;

o the election in October 2000 was unlawful in that it was conducted on the terms of the agreement of 19/10/2000 between Mr Reamsbottom and the Union. I further advise that the agreement was unlawful...

o that the Union's Rules simply do not allow for an election for General Secretary in which a person is elected General Secretary but only with effect 18 months on and where in the meantime a person who did not stand in the election is appointed General Secretary and continues as such for 18 months.

The NEC agreed that the election in which Socialist Alliance supporter Mark Serwotka, recently dubbed by the press as one of the six most dangerous men in Britian, was declared to have won in November 2000 was invalid, and instructed longstanding Labour supporter and Blairite Barry Reamsbottom to discuss with Mark Serwotka the possibility of a full-time headquarters job.

Barry Reamsbottom said: "I am sorry that the hard left tried to prevent the NEC majority from carrying out its duties under the rules. They prevented debate on these issues. But the decision has now been properly taken, and I will be proud to serve the union as general secretary for the next 2 years. I make this pledge to PCS members: I will not let you down."

(top)

WHAT THE NEC SAW

NEC.42/4/02 NEC.42/4/02
PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES UNION 160 Falcon Road, London SW11 2LN

TO: NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FROM: Barry Reamsbottom, General Secretary DATE: 22 May 2002 SUBJECT: ELECTION OF GENERAL SECRETARY
TIMING: For decision at the NEC meeting to be held on 23 May 2002.

ISSUE:
Serious legal questions have arisen about the election for the post of General Secretary elect in October 2002, and the agreements made with Mark Serwotka and myself during that period and subsequently.
I attach for your consideration a legal Opinion from Alan Pardoe Q.C., who is a senior Counsel and is well respected as an employment lawyer within the legal profession and beyond.

His Opinion is very detailed and wide-ranging, but the key paragraphs seem to me to be;

(1) paragraphs 5-7. which comment on my appointment as General Secretary, and state that at the time of the merger, each of the General Secretaries of the PTC and CPSA "was appointed for 5 years unless he reached normal retirement date during that period and that each was entitled if still in office at the end of that period to continue in office without standing for re-election";

(2) paragraph 12. on the lawfulness (or otherwise) of the election to a General Secretary post conducted in October 2000, which states that "the election in October 2000 was unlawful in that it was conducted on the terms of the agreement of 19/10/2000 between Mr Reamsbottom and the Union. I further advise that the agreement was unlawful...";

(3) paragraph 15.5. which states that the Union's Rules simply do not allow for an election for General Secretary in which a person is elected General Secretary but only with effect 18 months on and where in the meantime a person who did not stand in the election is appointed General Secretary and continues as such for 18 months.
What this means in summary is that at the time of the merger I was lawfully appointed as joint General Secretary of the PCS, and had a right to be appointed as sole General Secretary automatically on the retirement of John Sheldon.

However, it is Counsel's view that the contract entered into between myself and the PCS on 19/10/2000 was unlawful, as was the election to a post of General Secretary, in which Mark Serwotka was elected.

Many of you will be aware that the background to the agreement between myself and PCS was the amendment to Rule PR11 proposed at the 2000 Conference, and subsequently endorsed in July 2000 in a members, ballot. I took the view, on advice, that the amendment to Rule PR11 was not effective to deny me the right to continue in office until 2004, when I reach age 55. I commenced proceedings against PCS but it became clear to me that the cost of the proceedings and the prevailing political climate were such that it was in no-one's interest for me to pursue the legal proceedings to trial. Accordingly, I was forced to agree to leave my post earlier than had been agreed at the time of the amalgamation of PCS and CPSA.

The new advice of Alan Pardoe Q.C., creates a very serious position for the Union and one which the new NEC will need to consider as a matter of urgency, not least because both Mark Serwotka and many in the Union expect him to take over as sole General Secretary of the PCS on 1 June. But, it is clear from the Opinion given by Mr Pardoe that it would not be lawful for him to do so.

However, it is also clear from his Opinion that the terms of my appointment, initially as joint General Secretary, and subsequently as General Secretary, with an entitlement to continue in post without standing for re-election until my normal retirement date, which is April 2004, were not invalidated either by the contract between the PCS and myself signed on 19 October 2000, or the election to a post of GS that took place in October 2000.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Since this advice has now been received, I recommend that the NEC endorses the following:

1. Barry Reamsbottom remains in office as General Secretary in accordance with the terms of the Instrument of Amalgamation until he reaches the normal retirement age of 55 in April 2004.

2. The agreement entered into between Barry Reamsbottom and PCS dated 19 October 2000 is unlawful and void.

3. The election for a General Secretary held in October 2000 was unlawful and in breach of the PCS Rules and is void.

4. The General Secretary, Barry Reamsbottom, is authorised to enter into discussions with Mark Serwotka with a view to either agreeing upon terms and conditions under which he should be appointed as a full-time Officer of PCS or upon terms on which Mr Serwotka will leave the employment of PCS and return to work in the Civil Service. The General Secretary shall report upon such discussions to the Establishments and General Purposes Committee which shall be required to approve any agreement with Mark Serwotka.

5. There shall be an election in Spring 2004 to fill the vacancy for the post of General Secretary which will arise upon the retirement of Barry Reamsbottom.

GENERAL SECRETARY

(top)

PCS Rules and the Election of a General Secretary
ADVICE

1. By an instrument of amalgamation which was approved and came into effect in 1997, the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union and the Civil and Public Services Association amalgamated to become the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS).

2. C19(a) of the Transitional Provisions provided :
(a) There shall be appointed as Joint General Secretaries
(i) the PTC Joint General Secretary (John Sheldon)... and
(ii) the CPSA General Secretary.

In the event that one of the Joint General Secretaries cease to serve, the remaining Joint General Secretary shall be appointed as General Secretary."

3. In 1998 following the amalgamation (see PR16) 2 Joint General Secretaries, John Sheldon (PTC) and Barry Reamsbottom (CPSA) were appointed.

4. At page 1 of the Instrument of Amalgamation para. 9 stated:

"The method of electing the General Secretary of the Union is contained in the Principal Rules and in Section 8 of the Supplementary Rules. The method of appointing other Senior Full-time Officers of the Union is contained in Section 8 of the Supplementary Rules."

5. PR11 of the original Principal Rules provided that a person elected as General Secretary:

"Shall serve for a period of 5 years, subject to not having reached their normal retirement date; where they are due to reach that date owithin 5 years of the end of their term of office, they shall be entitled to continue in office without standing for re-election until reaching it."

6. C19 did not express the length of term of appointment of Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Reamsbottom but by necessary implication in my view they were each appointed on the terms of PR 11 as set out at paragraph 5 above.

7. It followed that each was appointed for 5 years unless he reached normal retirement age during that period and that each was entitled if still in office at the end of that period to continue in office without standing for re-election.

8. In 2000 the NEC decided to make changes in these arrangements. It did so in 2 ways:

(a) by putting to a vote of the membership a proposal to delete the words in italics in PR 11 as set out at paragraph 5 above.
(b) by organising an election for General Secretary in which nominations were due to close on 20/10/2000.

9. This was challenged in the High Court proceedings by Mr. Reamsbottom, the result of which was a lengthy compromise agreement dated 19/10/2000 between Mr. Reamsbottom and the Union. Under the preamble and paragraphs 1. 3, 4 and 5 of the agreement it was agreed:

(a) that Mr. Reamsbottom would not stand "in the current election" (preamble)
(b) that Mr. Reamsbottom's employment as General Secretary would cease on 31/5/2002 or such earlier date as might be agreed (the Leaving Date) and that his employment by the Union would terminate on the Leaving Date (para. 3).
(c) that Mr. Reamsbottom would "continue to serve as Joint General Secretary ... until 31/1/2001 and thereafter until the Leaving Date ... as General Secretary of the Union ..." (para. 4).
(d) that "from 31/1/2001 until the termination of Mr. Reamsbottom's employment as General Secretary, the candidate elected as General Secretary in the current election ... ("the Successful Candidate") shall carry out duties including those set out in Schedule 3 and that Mr. Reamsbottom agrees that during that period he will work with the Successful Candidate with a view to implementing a smooth transfer of duties and responsibilities ..." (para. 5).
(e) "In consideration of and conditional upon Mr. Reamsbottom complying with clauses 1 to 5" of that agreement the Union undertook various financial obligations to Mr. Reamsbottom coming into effect on the Leaving Date. (para.6).
(f) Under Paras. 7 to 11 Mr. Reamsbottom accepted "this agreement in full and final settlement" of various claims against the Union including his proceedings to challenge the change in PR11.

10. The election was held. Mr. Reamsbottom did not stand and a candidate was elected but would not take up appointment until Mr. Reamsbottom departed on the Leaving Date as set out in the agreement of 19/10/2000.

11. On 31/1/2001 I understand Mr. Sheldon retired and Mr. Reamsbottom, in accordance with C19 was appointed General Secretary. He remains General Secretary.

12. I advise that the election in October 2000 was unlawful in that it was conducted on the terms of the agreement of 19/10/2000 between Mr. Reamsbottom and the Union. I further advise that the agreement was unlawful. They were both unlawful for the same reason that each fell foul of s.59 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which provides :
"Where a person holds a position to which this Chapter applies [includes General Secretary: see s.46(2)(d)] immediately before an election at which he is not re-elected to that position nothing in this Chapter shall be taken to require the union to prevent him from continuing to hold that position for such period (not exceeding 6 months) as may reasonably be required for effect to be given to the result of the election."

The agreement of 19/10/2000 made express provision for Mr. Reamsbottom to be appointed General Secretary after the election for a new General Secretary, an election in which he was not a candidate and to hold that position long after 6 months had expired.

13. However the sole remedy for such statutory unlawfulness is application for a declaration under s.55 or s.56 (see s.54) and the period for application for a declaration that the Union failed to comply with the statutory requirements expired at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Union announced the result of the election (see TULRCA 1992 s.54).

14. Accordingly I must advise that no challenge under ss. 55 and 56 is now possible and that the election of October 2000 cannot be declared ineffective under the Act.

15.1 However, it can in my opinion be argued independently of the Act that the election was invalid under the Union Rules. Supplementary Rule 8.4 provides :

"In the event of a vacancy in any Senior Full-time Officer post filled by election in accordance with principal rule PR11, the NEC shall make the necessary arrangements for an election to be held, including the appointment of an independent Scrutineer ..."

15.2 The only post referred to in PR11 as being filled by election is that of General Secretary.

15.3 At the time of the election of October 2000 there was no vacancy in the post of General Secretary. Furthermore that election was conducted in the context and on the terms of the agreement of 19/10/2000 between Mr. Reamsbottom and the Union. Under that agreement Mr. Reamsbottom was to be appointed General Secretary until the Leaving Date (31/5/2002 or earlier agreed date).

15.4 Accordingly at the time of the election held in October 2000 there was no vacancy in the post of General Secretary and no vacancy was anticipated to occur until the Leaving Date. No vacancy has in fact yet occurred.

15.5 Rule 8.4 was not operated and could not have been operated in these circumstances. Put another way the Union's Rules simply do not allow for an election for General Secretary in which a person is elected General Secretary but only with effect 18 months on and where in the meantime a person who did not stand in the election is appointed General Secretary and continues as such for that 18 months.

16. Furthermore the conclusion that the agreement of 19/10/2000 was unlawful and unenforceable remains and is arguably unaffected by the expiry of the time limit under s.54. A separate ground of unlawfulness is that the agreement contemplates an election and related events proceeding in breach of the Union rules.

ALAN PARDOE Q.C.
Devereux Chambers Devereux Court London WC2R 3JH
10 May 2002

(top)

SUB COMMITTEES

NEC.42/6/02 NEC.42/6/02
PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES UNION 160 Falcon Road, London SW11 2LN
TO: NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FROM: Barry Reamsbottom, General Secretary
DATE: 22 May 2002
SUBJECT: NEC COMMITTEES
TIMING: For decision at the NEC meeting to be held on 23 May 2002.
ISSUE: To determine the composition of NEC committees agreed under the Standing Orders for the 2002 - 2004 national executive committee, a proposal for which is attached.
GENERAL SECRETARY

Committee name: PRC
Chairperson: John McGowan
Committee members: 14 members + Honorary Officers

Admin (6)
Buchanan Currie Galligan P Hart Marsh Nimmo

Executive (5)
Bamborough Campbell Mclntyre McKendrick Welch D

Revenue (3)
Bastow Binks Wilde

Committee name: Establishments & General Purposes Committee
Chairperson: Pauline Abrams
Committee members: 8
1. Binks
2. Currie
3. Campbell
4. Euers
5. McGowan
6. Mclntyre
7. Priestley
8. Welch D

Committee name: ROMS
Chairperson: Ted Euers
Committee members: 11
1. Bamborough
2. Booth
3. Buchanan
4. Cornell
5. Currie
6. Hart
7. McGowan
8. Mclntyre
9. McKendrick
10. Priestley
11. Wilde

Committee name: Finance Committee
Chairperson: Pauline Abrams
Committee members: 9
1. Bastow
2. Currie
3. Galligan C
4. Hart
5. Marsh
6. Mclntyre
7. McGowan
8. Welch D
9. Whiteman

Committee name: Learning Services
Chairperson: Pauline Abrams
Committee members: 10
1. Bamborough
2. Booth
3. Buchanan
4. Coldbeck
5. Currie
6. Dorman
7. Hart
8. Marsh
9. Priestley
10. Whiteman

Committee name: Editorial Board
Chairperson: John McGowan
Committee members;
1. Currie
2. Galligan P

Committee name: Personnel Policy Forum
Chairperson: John McGowan
Committee members: 7
1. Abrams
2. Campbell
3. Galligan P
4. Herbert
5. Moss
6. Mclntyre
7. Young

Committee name: Benevolent Services Committee
Management Committee Chairperson: Stuart Currie
Panel Chairperson: Pauline Abrams
Committee members: 6
1. Bastow
2. Binks
3. Dorman
4. Hart
5. Moss
6. Young

Committee name: Disability Forum
Chairperson: John McGowan
Committee members: 7
1. Bamborough
2. Binks
3. Bowers
4. Currie
5. Marsh
6. Nimmo
7. Wilde

Committee name: Black Members Forum
Chairperson: Pauline Abrams
All black NEC members who wish to attend

Committee name: Commercial Sector Forum
Chairperson: Pauline Abrams
Committee members: 1
1. Cornell

Committee name: Women's Forum
Chairperson: Pauline Abrams
Committee members: 9
1. Bamborough
2. Binks
3. Campbell
4. Coldbeck
5. Dorman
6. Galligan C
7. Herbert
8. Marsh
9. Young

Committee name: Health & Safety Forum
Chairperson: Ted Euers
Committee members: 7
1. Booth
2. Bowers
3. Buchanan
4. Coldbeck
5. Currie
6. Moss
7. Nimmo

Committee name: TUC Delegation
Chairperson: John McGowan
Committee members: 11
1. Abrams
2. Bamborough
3. Binks
4. Currie
5. Campbell
6. Euers
7. Marsh
8. McGowan (c)
9. Mclntyre
10.WelchD
11.Whiteman

Committee name: Civil Service Pay
Strategy Team Chairperson: John McGowan
Committee members: 5
1. Abrams
2. Bamborough
3. Bastow
4. Campbell
5. Currie

Committee name: Public Sector Pay Forum
Chairperson: John McGowan
All NEC members entitled to attend.

Committee name: Call Centre Forum
Chairperson: Ted Euers
Committee members: 1
1. Kitchen

(top)

CORRESPONDENCE

NEC.42/8/02 NEC.42/8/02
PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES UNION 160 Falcon Road. London SW11 2LN

TO: NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FROM: Barry Reamsbottom, General Secretary
DATE: 22 May 2002

SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE WITH SENIOR OFFICERS
TIMING: For noting at the NEC meeting to be held on 23 May 2002.

ISSUE: I am copying recent correspondence between myself and Mark Serwotka, and Janice Godrich, about tomorrow's meeting of the NEC; with Hugh Lanning about contracts signed in last few weeks; and to Joan Easton about a selection panel held on 22 May.

I am concerned that decisions appear to have been taken which should properly have been cleared either with myself as general secretary, or with the NEC, without any authority.

GENERAL SECRETARY

Internal Memorandum

Public and Commercial Services Union

To: Janice Godrich
cc: Mark Serwotka
From: Barry Reamsbottom
Subject: MEETING OF THE NEW NEC
Date: 20 May 2002

In accordance with rule 7.19 I am writing to advise you that I think it is appropriate to call a one-day meeting this week on Thursday 23 May commencing at 11.30 am.
The agenda will be:
1. Apologies for absence
2. Matters arising not covered elsewhere in the agenda notified to the general secretary in advance
3. Priority matters for decision:
(!) Adoption of the new standing orders (ii) Composition of NEC sub-committees (iii) Urgent post-Conference business
Would you please arrange with the general secretary elect's office to have the agenda issued today and to advise the NEC members of the meeting.

GENERAL SECRETARY

PCS Internal Memo

To: BARRY REAMSBOTTOM
Cc Janice Godrich
From: Mark Serwotka
Date: 20 May 2002
Subject: MEETING OF NEW NEC

Thank you for a copy of your memo to the President.
Whilst I am sure that the President will write to you directly, I thought you should know that in consultation with the President I have arranged for the first meeting of the NEC to be held on Monday 10th June 2002. I attach a copy of the notice for your information.

MARK/SERWOTKA
General Secretary elect

NEC.42/2/02 NEC.42/2/02
PCS Public and Commercial Services Union
TO: NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FROM: The General Secretary elect
DATE: 20 May 2002
SUBJECT: AGENDA for the NEC meeting on 10 June 2002
TIMING: In consultation with the President, the first meeting of the new NEC will be held on Monday 10 June 2002 in the Main Boardroom, 4'*' Floor at PCS HQ, 160 Falcon Road, London SW11, commencing at 1.30 pm and finishing no later than 4.30 pm.

In order to facilitate good business and the smooth running of the Executive, I would be obliged if NEC members who wish to raise issues, could notify me by Friday 31st May so that papers can be produced.

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence
2. Standing Orders for the National Executive Committee - paper to follow
3. Dates for NEC meetings
4. BDC Resolutions - paper to follow
5. Any other urgent business

MARK SERWOTKA
General Secretary elect

Internal Memorandum

Public and Commercial Services Union
To: Mark Serwotka
cc Janice Godrich
From: Barry Reamsbottom
Date: 21 May 2002
Subject: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE NEW NEC

Following our discussion yesterday I am writing to put on record my deep concern at your apparent lack of knowledge of the PCS rules, or your willingness to ignore them.

With regard to the special meeting of the NEC, supplementary rule 7.19 could not be clearer: "The NEC shall meet not fewer that 4 times each year, and at such other times as either (a) the President or General Secretary considers necessary, or (b) a majority of NEC members request in writing ..." There is no provision for a meeting to be called by the general secretary elect, but I am quite entitled under rule to call a meeting of the NEC.

During our discussion you attempted to criticise my staff by suggesting that they knew Janice Godrich would not be in, and just put the paper under her door. Joan Cawston not only ensured that a hard copy was put under Janice's door, rather than left to the internal mail, but she immediately gave your secretary a copy and asked if she knew where Janice was. Your secretary was unable to help. Joan then e-mailed Janice a copy of the document to both her work and home e-mails.

Whilst I fully understand that there may be differences between us, and that we may pursue them robustly, I have always maintained the principle that we should keep staff out of those disagreements.

I am extremely concerned that you may be using political reasons for unfairly criticising staff who work for me and as I pointed out to you, have always behaved, despite the extremely difficult circumstances of the last 4 years, with utter professionalism. I will have to report this to the national executive committee, as it bodes ill for the time when you will become establishments officer.
Nevertheless, you might now feel obliged to provide me with an apology for these remarks.

Coupled with your proposal at the special NEC meeting at conference, that the NEC should indemnify the SOC against any costs if action was taken against them, when you were unclear about the relevant rule, and you had, quite obviously, taken no advice to help clarify the matter for the NEC, your apparent ignorance of SR 7.19 is incredible. This compounds your outburst at that meeting when you maligned the secretary of the SOC, Jim Hanson. Of course, I have handed over to you a grievance that Jim has submitted to me as establishments officer, and I look forward to hearing from you when you have had time to consider the contents of Jim Hanson's grievance.

On the issue of indemnities, SR 9.20 refers, which allows the NEC to indemnify other office-holders, and the rule is quite clear. It means that if the SOC had acted through "wilful neglect or default or fraud", i.e. if the SOC printed motions despite legal advice to the contrary, the NEC could not indemnify them. If they withdrew those motions, there would be no need to indemnify them.
I have already drawn your attention to SR 7.19 whose terms could not be clearer, and I hope you will not waste any more members' money on a lawyer's opinion about a matter that is crystal clear.

Given that you have confirmed at the end of our meeting that you instructed the committee secretary not to issue the paper in my name advising NEC members of the meeting on 23 May, I trust that neither you nor your supporters will complain about short notice for the meeting.

GENERAL SECRETARY
Dictated by the General Secretary and Signed In his absence

INTERNAL MEMORANDUM

Ref: BR/MS/LL Date: 21 May 2002
To: Barry Reamsbottom
c.c. Mark Serwotka
From: Janice Godrich
Subject: MEETING OF NEW NEC

I received your memo of 20 May when I arrived at PCS HQ today Tuesday 21 May.

Under Rule 8.3 (a), you are required to consult me before convening a meeting of the NEC. You have not done so. This is not only obligatory, it would also have been a matter of courtesy.

I am concerned about your proposed agenda item 2. I need to know what specific issue (s) are to be raised, so I can consider them and take advice if necessary.

As for agenda item 3(i), do you or anyone else have specific proposals to make. I would want time to consider them.
I am also concerned about agenda item 3 (in). What is proposed here?

Under the Standing Orders for the previous NEC, 14 days notice of a meeting should be given to the NEC and all relevant papers shall be posted at least 7 days before meetings. I would want to do all I can to meet these. Your timetable does not allow for this.

The General Secretary elect consulted me on Monday morning the 20 May, as a result of which, we have convened the NEC for the 10 June. This meets good practice of 14 days notice and 7 days for papers.

Given this, what is so urgent that it cannot await the meeting on the 10 June?

JANICE GODRICH
President

Internal Memorandum

Public and Commercial Services Union
To: Janice Godrich
cc: Mark Serwotka
From: Barry Reamsbottom
Date: 21 May 2002
Subject: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE NEW NEC

I am writing in reply to your memo of today's date.

Under supplementary rule 7.19 I am not required to consult you if I feel that there is a need for an NEC meeting. However, it has always been my practice to consult the president of the union on such matters, and I made every effort to do so.

My memo to you of 20 May itself constituted consultation, and contrary to what Mark Serwotka told me when we met yesterday, not only did my secretary put a copy under your door - rather than place it in the internal post - but also sent it by e-mail to your work and home e-mail addresses.

I therefore reject any assertion or implication made by you that I acted discourteously, or failed to consult.
Supplementary rule 7.19 quite clearly entitles me to call a meeting of the NEC. I cannot agree with the remaining contents of your memo.

GENERAL SECRETARY
Dictated by the General Secretary and signed in his absence

PCS Internal Memo
To: BARRY REAMSBOTTOM
From: Janice Godrich
Date: 21 May 2002
Subject: MEETING OF THE NEW NEC

I refer to your memo of 21 May.

Rule 8.3(a) requires you to consult me about convening an NEC meeting. I do not accept you made "every effort to do so". The General Secretary elect, Mark Serwotka, rang me to discuss an NEC meeting. Why did you not try and speak to me to discuss your intentions?

Consultation by e-mail and/or an advance copy of an agenda, is not consultation in my opinion - it is you notifying me of your decision and plan. I also feel you have acted discourteously.

Furthermore, you have not replied to my question as to what is so urgent that it cannot wait until the proper NEC meeting on the 10th June. Nor have you complied with my request to know what is specifically being tabled for the special meeting on the 23rd May.

I believe that PCS members would believe it to be fair, reasonable and sensible that the President of the Union (and of the NEC) knows, in advance, what is to be raised to allow her and them to consider the issues and take advice.

Given that you have called this meeting and have obviously been planning it for some time, I assume you know what issues are to be raised.

I am deeply concerned that whilst your Moderate Group supporters on the NEC may have had prior notice of this meeting, the rest of the NEC will have about 24/48 hours' notice. This could place them in difficulty with their employer, families and other union commitments.

I do not regard this as satisfactory and it offends me. As a union committed to equal opportunities and the worklife balance agenda, I believe your actions to be consistent. I will reflect further on this.

JANICE GODRICH
President

Internal Memorandum

Public and Commercial Services Union
To: Gaynelle Samuel
From: Barry Reamsbottom
Date: 20 May 2002
Subject: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

I would be grateful if you would provide me, by 5 pm today, copies of all contracts or agreements, and any associated correspondence, with any member of staff or officer and any outside provider or services, including legal services, drawn up in the last month.

Please confirm by return that you can provide the information within the timescale I have given.

GENERAL SECRETARY

PRIVATE-IN-CONFIDENCE

Public and Commercial Services Union
Internal Memorandum
TO: BARRY REAMSBOTTOM
c.c. Mark Serwotka
FROM: Hugh Lanning
DATE: 22nd May 2002
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

When we discussed legal services very briefly at conference I agreed to let you have copies of the legal services agreements on Monday.

At the time I had intended to be in the office, as it turned out I was sick.

Therefore I was surprised to hear and then see the memo to Gaynelle Samuel on my return. I can see no justification for writing to a member of staff in such a manner giving a time deadline to a very general request that many would see as threatening.

In relation to the general request, in the normal course of events I do not sign many contracts under the agreed procedure. If I do the correspondence and contract it is normally held by the department concerned. I do not know if there is any particular contract you have in mind, apart from the Legal Services ones which I had already promised to copy for you.

Rather than write in such a manner to a member of staff, if there was an urgency you could have tried to contact me at home. As it is I can assure you that the staff in my office were not in a position to comply with the request as they were not in possession of all the necessary information.

HUGH LANNING
Assistant General Secretary

Internal Memorandum

Public and Commercial Services Union

To: Joan Easton
cc: Janice Godrich, Mark Serwotka
From: Barry Reamsbottom
Date: 20 May 2002
Subject: PS2 APPOINTMENT PANEL - WEDNESDAY 22 MAY 2002

I am writing to instruct you to cancel the PS2 appointment panel arranged for this Wednesday, 22 May 2002.1 will explain the reason to you at a later date, but I am sure that you are aware that there is now a new NEC, which may wish to be involved in the determination of the process.

(signed Barry)
GENERAL SECRETARY

Public and Commercial Services Union
Internal Memorandum
TO: BARRY REAMSBOTTOM
c.c. Mark Serwotka, Janice Godrich
FROM: Hugh Lanning
DATE: 22nd May 2002
SUBJECT: LEGAL SERVICES

At conference on the Friday morning you requested copies of the legal agreements - attached are the relevant documents. The originals, which were signed by the President and GS Elect, have been sent to the solicitors for them to sign and return.

I am writing to you separately about the memo of 20th May 2002 that you wrote to Gaynelle Samuel when I was on sick leave.

HUGH LANNING
Assistant General Secretary

Public and Commercial Services Union
Internal Memorandum
TO: HUGH LANNING
c.c. Mark Serwotka
FROM: Peter Donnellan
DATE: 9th May 2002
SUBJECT: LEGAL SERVICES

Following the endorsement by the NEC of the minutes of the Honorary Officers meeting of 22nd October 2001,1 can confirm that it is now appropriate for the agreements with Thompsons and RJW to be issued.

The agreements should be in line with those agreed by the Honorary Officers at their meeting on 22nd February.

PETER DONNELLAN
President

(top)