DID THE GENERAL SECRETARY of the FBU abuse his authority by using the resources of the union, without the approval of the executive council, to threaten a member with legal action after that member made critical comments about him on social media?
That question demands an answer after evidence emerged showing that the FBU’s solicitors, Thompsons, claimed to be acting for the union in a recent legal dispute with London member Brian Flanagan over remarks he posted on Facebook about general secretary Matt Wrack.
Documentation relating to the dispute has been circulating among members within the London region and has been seen by this blog.
Flanagan alleged in his post that Wrack had bullied employees of the union and then authorised secret settlement payments in return for them signing non-disclosure agreements (known as ‘gagging orders’).
The same allegation sits at the heart of the ongoing ‘hush money’ scandal inside the FBU, which is currently the subject of an official investigation by the government’s trade union regulator and has been discussed by MPs on a select committee. The affair has also been covered widely by this blog and in the pages of Private Eye magazine.
Flanagan also suggested in his Facebook post that Wrack had blocked an application for union membership from a black firefighter who had made an allegation of racism against one of his allies (this blog has previously covered that particular story, too)
On 14 November, just a day after making the post, Flanagan – who also serves as an FBU official in north-west London – received a letter from Thompsons solicitor Gerard Stilliard. The letter was extremely threatening in tone. Stilliard said he had been ‘instructed by the Fire Brigades Union’ (he confirmed in a follow-up email that he was acting for the union as a body and not for Wrack personally).
Stilliard told Flanagan the union believed his comments were inaccurate, defamatory and ‘likely to cause significant damage and harm’ to both its own reputation and that of the general secretary. He said the union demanded that he delete the post in question and issue a full public apology within 24 hours. The apology would remain online for three months. Stilliard went on to make it clear that if Flanagan did not meet the demand, the union would commence formal legal proceedings and seek ‘substantial damages and legal costs’ from him.
Stilliard outlined some proposed text for the apology. Intriguingly, the text was geared entirely towards defending the reputation of Wrack personally and not the union as a body. This seemed very odd. After all, if Stilliard was acting for the union as a body, as he claimed to be, then why was the apology being sought for Wrack personally? And given that Flanagan’s post on Facebook did not contain any criticism of the union as a body – his criticisms were directed entirely towards Wrack personally – why was the union threatening him with action at all? The union isn’t the general secretary, nor vice versa. It is perfectly possible to criticise senior officials, as Flanagan did, without criticising the union as a body.
Flanagan wrote back to Stilliard making some of these points. He also defended himself over the comments that he had posted on Facebook. He told Stilliard that he had documentary evidence in his possession showing that a number of employees – including two national officers – had made formal complaints alleging they had been mistreated by Wrack. Flanagan said he also possessed copies of non-disclosure agreements that had been reached with these employees. Additionally, he held a copy of an internal union document showing that Wrack had blocked the black firefighter’s membership application.
Flanagan said that he would be willing to produce these documents in court if the matter went that far. He would also plead a ‘public interest defence’ – which provides defendants in defamation cases with a defence if the statement being complained about related to a matter of public interest and the defendant could show that he published the statement in the reasonable belief that it was in the public interest to do so. Given the involvement of the trade union regulator, the discussion in parliament and the coverage in Private Eye, it was clear that the whole ‘hush money’ scandal met the criteria for being regarded as a matter of public interest.
Nonetheless, in an effort to draw a line under the matter, Flanagan offered to delete the offending post on Facebook.
There was then 12 days of radio silence from the union – something that seemed very strange given that Stilliard had previously insisted on a resolution within 24 hours. Eventually, Stilliard replied. He said that the union accepted the offer from Flanagan. Flanagan would delete the post in question and agree not to make any similar postings in the future. The demand for a full public apology to Wrack was dropped. This amounted to a significant climbdown on the part of the union.
But even though that agreement has now been reached, the matter is far from over. That is because some very serious questions arise from these events.
First, were Gerard Stilliard and Thompsons genuinely acting for the FBU? This blog has been informed that the matter had never been discussed with the executive council – the governing body of the union – before Stilliard sent his threatening letter to Flanagan. In fact, most executive council members knew nothing about it – a serious omission given the likely implications of the union launching a high-profile and potentially very costly legal case against one of its own members.
So if the executive council did not instruct him, who was Stilliard taking his orders from? This blog can confirm that the union’s president, Ian Murray, did not instruct him. And no other head office employee – such as the assistant general secretary or national officers – would likely have had the necessary authority to take a unilateral decision of this magnitude. So who gave Thompsons the go-ahead?
Some people may suspect that Wrack issued the instruction. But given that he had an obvious personal interest in the matter, it would surely have been completely inappropriate for him to give such an instruction. To have done so would effectively mean that he was using the offices and resources of the union to pursue a legal dispute by proxy – in other words, using the union as cover to wage a personal legal campaign against a member who had criticised him on social media.
This blog does not allege that Wrack did such a thing – but we do say that he needs to come out quickly and confirm one way or the other whether he had any involvement in the instruction given to Stilliard and Thompsons.
Second, was the correct and well-established procedure followed before Thompsons were instructed? In other words, was a legal application form completed by whoever initiated the process? Was the form approved and counter-signed in the normal way? If so, by whom? Was the usual ‘merits assessment’ carried out by Thompsons? Who saw the assessment? What did it say about the prospects of success if legal action were instigated? If the proper process was not followed, the executive council should make it clear that members will not be footing the bill for Thompsons’ fees.
Third, why was Flanagan given only 24 hours to agree to the union’s demands? He clearly would not have had sufficient time to seek legal advice in that extremely short period. This type of bullying tactic might be the modus operandi of cut-throat City lawyers, but it certainly should not be the favoured practice of a trade union firm.
This blog understands that these matters are likely to be discussed by the London regional committee and raised through the formal structures of the union.
Clearly all of the above questions need answering. The general secretary needs to provide an explanation. And quickly. There is a very nasty smell about this whole affair.