WORD HAS REACHED this blog that a planned relocation of the Fire Brigades Union’s (FBU) head office has fallen through at the eleventh hour, causing the union a massive logistical headache and potentially costing it many thousands of pounds in professional fees.
The union had agreed the terms of sale for its current head office in Kingston Upon Thames, south-west London – where it has been based for around 40 years – and was all set to move to a new property in Vauxhall, central London. Severance agreements had been reached with a number of existing employees who did not wish to relocate, and these individuals have now departed the union.
But just as the union was on the brink of moving, the deal was mysteriously scuppered. This means that the FBU leadership is now in a desperate race against the clock to find alternative premises, thereby placing itself at the mercy of estate agents and raising the possibility that it will end up paying over-the-odds for a suitable property – or moving to a property that is unsuitable.
The exact reason for the deal’s collapse has not been revealed by the union’s leadership – at least not to members. In fact, members could be forgiven for not being aware that the union was planning to relocate at all. For despite the magnitude of the decision, as well as the considerable cost implications, the proposal has never been submitted to annual conference – the parliament of the union – for proper discussion and debate. Neither was it ever brought to the attention of members via a head office circular.
In fact, the first that many members would have heard about the proposed move was when this blog revealed details about it earlier this year.
This cloak-and-dagger approach to a significant operational decision involving several million pounds of members’ money is totally unacceptable (though entirely in keeping with the current leadership’s autocratic approach). Members and officials throughout the country should have been kept informed, and the approval of annual conference should have been sought. Instead, everyone apart from a few people at the top of the union was kept in the dark.
Questions will also inevitably be asked of members of the union’s executive council. What did they know, and when? Did they demand regular updates and costings? Did they approve every decision? Did they ask the necessary questions? Did they properly hold the leadership to account? Did they do their job of scrutinising on behalf of their members?
At the very least members are entitled to expect an urgent head office circular explaining the reasons for the collapse of the deal and the implications for the union. The secrecy must end.