Brief report from the Certification Officer hearing

McGaughey and Blake vs UCU

Today was the hearing date for McGaughey and Blake vs UCU at the Certification Office, which I attended virtually (along with a great many other UCU members). It’s been a really long day, and I’m fairly certain that we’ll see a full account of what was said being reported in the trade press, so I’m not going to give a blow-by-blow account. These are just a few quick, personal, impressions.

First it’s worth noting that the Certification Officer (CO) was not at all pleased about the fact that McGaughey and Blake had gone to the press last week with their case. He made it clear that he considered it entirely unacceptable that information had been put into the public domain before the hearing. The word “disappointed” wasn’t strong enough to convey his feelings about the applicants going to the press. So not a great start for the applicants.

McGaughey and Blake have taken the rather curious approach of not presenting any real witness statements to accompany their complaint, including their own. This meant that neither of them could be cross-examined as witnesses, but the CO did allow the UCU KC to question them about their written argument. Most of the morning was taken up with this questioning, primarily directed at McGaughey. Again, I’m not going to try and cover everything that was said, but I think that the exchange really illustrated the difference between being a legal academic and being a practicing lawyer. Courtroom drama might be a bit strong, but it was pretty entertaining stuff at times.

Instead of traditional witness statements, what the applicants have presented is a series of anonymous accounts of goings-on inside UCU leading up to the 2024 General Secretary (GS) election. The CO confirmed, towards the end of the hearing, that he has not been told the identity of the authors of the anonymous “witness statements”, and no statements of truth have been submitted alongside these statements - so I am not sure how much weight the CO will place on them as possible evidence.

Part of the complaint is about misuse of union resources, and while I understand the argument being presented I think that there’s a huge gulf between the alleged breach of rules and the proposed remedy. The complaint also includes a screenshot of part of a WhatsApp conversation among staff that’s a little unguarded, but I’m not sure how significant it’ll end up being. No doubt it’ll be used to fan the flames of factional warfare within the union, but whether it’ll carry much evidentiary weight remains to be seen.

I came away from the hearing thinking that there’s little merit to the complaint. To me, it seems that the applicants are simply complaining about the electoral benefits of incumbency. What they’re conveniently forgetting is that incumbency cuts both ways. Do a good job and you can point to your successes when you’re out on the campaign trail; but once things start to go wrong, every small mistake gets hung around your neck like an albatross.

Anyway, the CO concluded today’s hearing by cautioning against litigating this matter in the press - which I am heeding - but also against celebrating before the results are in. There’s likely to be five or six weeks, at least, before any decision is made. Let’s wait until we have that decision before discussing what this means for the future of UCU.