1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

UCU forced to abandon its legal action against the IfL

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by teachered, Jan 18, 2012.

  1. It's true.
    I have just heard that UCU has been forced to call off its legal action against IfL. Not sure if it is to do with the financial position UCU is in or if the court threw the case out, but whatever I understand they have been forced to abandon the case.
    Anyone know more. TES??
     
  2. It's true.
    I have just heard that UCU has been forced to call off its legal action against IfL. Not sure if it is to do with the financial position UCU is in or if the court threw the case out, but whatever I understand they have been forced to abandon the case.
    Anyone know more. TES??
     
  3. That's not my understanding at all.
    In the Autumn the UCU agreed to withdraw its legal action against the IfL on the condition that John Hayes agreed not to use his powers to enforce the legislation (which he did), and that the AoC agreed to advise its members not to take any action against employees who did not renew their subscriptions (which they did).
    Thus continuing with the legal action would have been almost pointless since there is now no legal compulsion for UCU members (or anyone else for that matter) to pay their IfL subs.
    Reading between the lines it would seem the IfL were on a very sticky wicket and the Government stepped in before they were bowled out which would have been embarassing.
     
  4. Not so
    UCU wasn't in the position of power. It was Hayes who insisted they suspend legal action as a condition of the review. And they got the legal action suspended but the case was now live. They have now withdrawn it and will come up with some excuse for why, but the reality is they simply can't afford it as they are so in debt. As I understand it UCU would have lost the action as case law exists which causes their case to fall over. Maybe it was UCU on the sticky wicket - it wouldn't be the first time UCU lawyers ballsed up big time.

     
  5. Maybe.
    To be fair to lawyers they are no more than dogs whose owners must take responsiblity for their actions. More likely to be the UCU NEC to have dropped one.
    The situation maybe unclear with respect to the significance of the legal action initiated by UCU, nevertheless the clear reality is that there is now no compulsion to renew IfL subscriptions, and that this is a consequence of UCU members' refusal to pay.
     
  6. It?s my understanding that the case was discontinued earlier this month when it was confirmed that the claimant moved to a position in higher education, where IFL membership is not required. However the court action could still be resurrected through defending other union members still practicing in the FE sector.
     
  7. UCU brought an urgent case before the courts, so urgent they asked for it to be heard immediately. Then they suspended it. Then they discontinued it (look up the legal definition). I doubt any judge would entertain the same case being heard again.
    Bolt. Shot.
     
  8. Are we going to be told what the big legal questions were UCU wanted the
    court to rule on? How will these be dealt with by this review panel
    when it has no legal status or expertise? How much has the case cost UCU
    so far, given its rather shaky current financial position? Can the
    action be simply restarted as Hunt suggests or will the court reject it a
    second time? What happens if nothing changes through the review and
    UCU’s action causes its members financial loss – are they liable? Seems
    to be lots of unanswered or unasked questions here? Why is UCU speaking
    on behalf of some mystery claimant? If UCU is as transparent and democratic as it claims, doesn't it owe it to its members and FE to name 'the claimant' who has cost the trade union tens of thousands of pounds?
     

Share This Page