The council’s employment practices.
Hackney’s reputation as an employer has never been good.

The ‘funny’ handshake

In the mid 1980s an independent investigation into freemasonry was chaired by Andrew Arden QC. Lincoln Crawford describes the period as one where there was ‘a prevailing suspicion by council employees that senior officers conducted themselves in a way which fell far below the standard expected of local government officers. A number of senior officers were
believed to be freemasons and through such membership they put their personal interest before the council and the public whom they served. The main allegations against these officers were of corruption and malpractice in the award of contracts to private developers.’ He goes on ‘by the time the interim Arden report was submitted some of these officers had left the Council’s employ.’ It was alleged that freemasons had used their influence to recruit other freemasons, and had protected them from disciplinary action despite sub-standard work. The effect on staff who were not freemasons was to displace additional work and responsibilities onto them, they were also disproportionately more likely to be disciplined.

Chief Executive's speech: 'Wake up and smell the coffee', 'Open cast brain surgery'

Valuing diversity?
In 1995 Hackney appointed a new Chief Executive, Tony Elliston. He came with a reputation for slashing jobs and services. It did not take him long to display his utter contempt for the whole of Hackney’s workforce. Interviewed for a management magazine he claimed that Hackney Council staff needed ‘open cast brain surgery’, and that they had better wake up
and ‘smell the coffee’. A man with no history at Hackney arrived with a determination to cut the services provided to the public of Hackney and to slash the terms and conditions of employment of staff. Privatisation (or ‘partnering’ in Hackney speech) became the preference.

Interviewed for your own job
The chief executive deliberately created a climate of fear. In complete disregard for employment law, staff were routinely forced to be interviewed for their own job. Staff with ten or more years experience in the borough were thrown on the dole, in the apparent belief that simply having worked for Hackney made you unsuitable to work here.

Institutionalised racism
The council has been riddled with institutional racism for decades. In 1983 the council was served a formal non-discrimination notice by the Commission for Racial Equality, following evidence that the council was discriminating against black families on the housing register. In 1998, the Commission served a ‘draft’ non-discrimination notice following evidence of widespread racism in its employment practices. Last year Sam Yeboah, who as head of personnel, had been the most senior black officer in the council won huge damages against the borough after he endured a long period of racial harassment from senior management. A list of 600 staff with ‘African sounding’ names was sent (illegally) to the Home Office. This lead to numerous staff being harassed by the police and immigration officials irrespective of their immigration
status. This information could only have come from senior figures within the management of the borough – no one was disciplined. This was part of a sustained campaign against staff with African names.Lincoln Crawford explains: ‘while Africans made up only 13 per cent of those receiving disciplinary action overall, they made up 27 per cent of those being dismissed.’ ‘From the evidence I have seen it is clear that a few West Africans were guilty of fraud, which led to their dismissal from the council. There was also evidence that some white employees had been guilty of fraud –
though not as severely punished as the West Africans. However, the consequence of the African’s conduct upon the visible minority workforce, in particular other Africans, was profound. Unlike the white employees, suspicion fell upon almost the whole of the African workforce. At one stage it led to the names of 600 mainly African employees of the council being passed to the Immigration and nationality Department of the Home office on the ground that they were illegal immigrants. The allegation was unfounded, but the cloud of suspicion remained. Of course there is no place for fraud and dishonesty in local government. But no one group should be humiliated or made to feel so demoralised, disrespected, threatened and vulnerable as this group were made to feel.’ Lincoln Crawford’s report was an official enquiry funded by the council.

If you feel that you have suffered discrimination you can obtain details of your rights from the Commission for Racial Equality.

Women on maternity leave
The Crawford report was published late in 1997, at the very same time the council was introducing another shake up designed to force existing staff to compete for what were effectively their own jobs (albeit with a different title and job description). Women on maternity leave have specific protection from redundancy. The council chose to ignore their legal obligations to these women and refused to redeploy them into suitable alternative posts. After a major local campaign and with the support of both the Maternity Alliance and the Equal Opportunities Commission the council was forced to concede large damages to the women, and reverse its discriminatory policy.

Link to the Equal Opportunities Commission
EMAIL Maternity Alliance

90 day notices and TUPE
The council wishes to enter into a widespread campaign of privatisation. However under EC legislation employees who are privatised must go to the new employer on their existing contract. Privatisation works by making people work harder for less pay so that the private company can make a profit out of public services. Hackney council services are not particularly attractive to private companies, because the existing terms and conditions are better than many in the private sector. The council is considering using 90 day notices to make services more attractive to privatisation. By reducing our terns and conditions in advance of privatisation the TUPE regulations would be completely undermined. TUPE exists specifically to protect staff from the new service provider using such tactics. If the tribunals find this a lawful process then staff will have fewer rights than if they are privatised! Winning the Hackney Factor cases will make it harder for the council to privatise our jobs.

This is a case for every trade unionist to support. Ninety day notices are an affront to employment rights. If we can stop Hackney Council, it will make other employers think twice before adopting this approach.