NEC Report, meeting held on 15 July 2025

1. General Secretary’s report

• Julia Mwaluke

The General Secretary reported on the issue of former Vice President, Julia Mwaluke, being removed from her Vice President role and ruled out of the 2025 NEC election despite winning it.

She said that the issue was “not for comment” and said that there has been lots of disinformation spread.

In response, some NEC members challenged the report. A Black member said that the language towards Black members reporting racism within their own union was not acceptable and disenfranchising. They said that Black members do experience discrimination within UNISON and this is reflected in the findings of the Race Inquiry, which was not referenced in the General Secretary’s report. They called for specific language asserting that allegations of racism within the union were “despicable” to be retracted.

Another Black member said that we must speak up on this issue, especially when members want answers on it.

One NEC member said that they stood in solidarity with those Black members who spoke up. They said that the ways the rules or procedures were applied did not incentivise openness or proper debate.

In her reply, the General Secretary said that it was not the intention of the language used in the report to deter members from raising allegations of racism. She said that all the recommendations flowing from the Race Inquiry would be implemented and in the last few days had impressed on regional secretaries that they would be accountable for that. Further, she said that rules must apply to everyone.

• Pay, local government funding and social care

Multiple NEC members brought up the issue of pay, bargaining agreements, resourcing and funding, specifically related to local government, social care and Community.

Some asked questions on the status of the local government pay claim and highlighted the abject state of bargaining in Northern Ireland. One NEC representative highlighted the need for fair pay and a bargaining agreement in Social Care, as well as the rapid implementation of a National Care Service.

One representative remarked that they found it hard to believe that Government could find the money to engage in endless wars but not fund local government or public services. One NEC member asked what preparatory work had been undertaken to ensure that the union would wage an ambitious campaign, in line with the Public Services Bailout motion passed at conference. An Assistant General Secretary responded that this was still early days and would become the property of the relevant NEC committees.

The General Secretary responded, saying that the issue of a National Care Service has and always will be a priority for her. She said that there was clear policy and strategy, which would be shared.

An Assistant General Secretary said that they would explore expanding, and looking at prioritisation for, the national bargaining for social care pilot.

• Proscription of Palestine Action and Palestinian solidarity

An NEC representative brought a motion to the NEC on ‘Defending the right to protest’, in response to the proscription of Palestine Action, which was argued was a misuse of powers and represented an attack on our members’ rights.

The motion was not accepted, with no written or verbal justification given, and it was reported to the member that the issue would be addressed in the General Secretary’s verbal report that day.

The General Secretary addressed the issue of Palestinian solidarity, which was welcomed. She said that it was wrong to conflate terrorism with destruction to property in protest. Further, she said that Unison would be lobbying government, but did not address the request for an immediate statement to be published.

The NEC representative pushed the General Secretary on this. They said that the NEC needed to make a statement and this shift represents a threat to trade unionists. A health worker said that they had been sent footage, that day, of a UNISON member being wrongfully harassed and arrested by police for wearing clothing, expressing support for Palestine. They said that the proscription had emboldened the police.

The General Secretary responded and said that the statement was an issue for the Policy Development & Campaigns Committee (PDCC). She did, however, commit to the union supporting members in instances described by the NEC representative from Health. She asserted that UNISON could not encourage members to break the law (which had not been suggested within the motion or discussion that day).

Some NEC representatives called for UNISON to break with service providers, such as Leonardo Hotels, for their relationship to the Israeli state. The new President had also called for this. An Assistant General Secretary (AGS) said that UNISON policy was to observe the boycotted companies on the United Nations and Palestinian Boycott Divestment Sanctions National Committee (BNC) list, the latter being a group of Palestinian civil society organisations and trade unions. The Leonardo Hotel chain was not currently listed. Because of the strength of feeling from members though, the AGS said UNISON would review our relationship with Leonardos.

• Suspending Angela Rayner from UNISON membership

An NEC member called for UNISON to follow Unite’s recent decision and suspend Angela Rayner from UNISON membership for voting for cuts to disability benefit.

The President said that the NEC had no such powers, and this was a matter for the Labour Link National Committee.

The General Secretary said that individual members could put in complaints about Rayner, as she was subject to the same rules and procedures as any other member. Complaints could lead to disciplinary action. The General Secretary said that she didn’t agree with disciplining individual MPs.

• Employment Rights Bill

The General Secretary requested an Officer present to provide the NEC with a report on the Employment Rights Bill. The Officer said that the Labour Government was under intense pressure from Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and the business lobby to dilute the bill, especially around Zero Hour Contracts. The House of Lords had made negative amendments on Zero Hour Contracts but we expect Government to reverse those Lords’ amendments. There was a phased approach, with the expectation that this provision would likely become legislation in September.

The Officer also reported that the draconian 2016 Trade Union Act was not being repealed as a whole because of the nature of the Act. If it was repealed as a whole, it would leave older Acts in place that were no longer fit for purpose, which we would not want. For example, removing some control of when to take industrial action after ballots are completed. The Government is however repealing most of it.

The Officer also reported that whilst we are all disappointed by the delay in repeal of statutory balloting thresholds, Government has prioritised the introduction of electronic balloting first.

• Other issues and concluding remarks

One NEC representative asked why this NEC meeting, like the one at Conference, could not be hybrid. Making it in-person only had prevented attendance by some women NEC members that day with childcare commitments. The General Secretary said that meetings would be conducted in hybrid in the future. But for the purposes of Committee voting today, this could not be done on this occasion.

Another NEC representative asked for meetings to be arranged so that they do not conflict with other meetings that members of the NEC might be obligated to attend. For example, this meeting conflicted with the Local Government Service Group Executive Meeting.

2. TUC nominations & motions

Christina McAnea and Liz Snape, due to their positions, were automatically entitled to be sent with the delegation to TUC Conference. This was agreed, as per custom and practice.

Three motions were endorsed and agreed for Trades Union Congress.

One NEC member said that they had received a request from the FBU, through individuals personally connected to the issue, for UNISON to second the Zane’s Law motion. In response, the Assistant General Secretary said that they it would be considered by the delegation but could not see a problem. They warned, however, that the union received many requests to second motions from other unions.

3. Allocation of NEC members to NEC Committees

This had been approached in the usual way, with allocations being decided by the new Presidential Team after receiving recommendations from Officers.

This had resulted in the disproportionate allocation of committee places as has become custom and practice in the union. One NEC member commeted that when the same disproportionate allocations had been approved by the NEC in 2023 it had caused a highly contentious debate. But the same NEC members who had opposed disproportionate allocation in 2023 now were apparently content in 2025.

One large group (or faction) on the NEC had found that its NEC members had only been allocated on average 1.92 Committee places per NEC member. Another large group on the NEC (the largest) had been allocated on average 3.75 Committee places per each NEC member. This was very nearly double. In such disproportionate allocations, large majorities are built into the NEC Committees, where such important work and decisions are made for the union.

It was pointed out by one NEC member that 31 of 67 NEC members have 4, 5 or 6 Committee places. 5 of 67 NEC members have only 1 Committee each. These allocations fell consistently along factional lines.

One Black member, newly elected to the NEC, raised concerns that they only had one committee and so could not represent their service group members fully. This contrasts with another newly elected Black NEC member who has 5 committees.

Another NEC member raised concerns that both their service group representatives had been allocated to the PDCC (Policy & Campaigns) Committee, whereas previously, to get a more sensible spread, one had been allocated to PDCC and the other allocated to the other major committee, Development & Organising.

Another NEC member raised concerns that there was no longer representation for Disabled Members on the Staffing Committee and this was a backwards step from the 2023-25 Staffing Committee.

The Presidential Team responded by asking for NEC members to submit appeals for their committee allocations by the coming Thursday.

4. General Secretary election procedures

These had been prepared by Officers for the coming General Secretary election. An NEC member submitted a number of amendments the previous day though these were circulated that morning. One NEC member moved that the amendments should not be discussed at all for access reasons. Another NEC stated they should, in order not to set precedent that the NEC could never discuss and take decisions at short notice: it needed to retain flexibility. They also pointed out that the NEC member arguing the amendments should not be taken had themselves proposed amendments from the floor on previous occasions. It was highlighted by another NEC member that there were no deadlines in the NEC’s standing orders for submission of amendments and this could be addressed at the next NEC meeting by changing the standing orders. The Presidential Team agreed the amendments must be heard and we should not set precedent which binds us unnecessarily in future.

That the NEC should not debate the amendments at all was voted on but was not carried. To enable representatives to give due consideration to the amendments, they requested that the mover of the amendments speak to each one singularly.

After the full debate on the amendments to the election procedures, a small number of amendments were withdrawn as they were no longer considered necessary. But the great number were voted on and fell.

The debate was robust and it became clear that regardless of the quality of argument, members of the NEC would vote along group lines and this happened on repeat occasions as we addressed each amendment in turn.

The NEC agreed to accept changes that removed the cap on donations for General Secretary elections (previously £150 per member) and also removed the need to keep a log of donations made. Some NEC members were concerned this meant that people or interests with deep pockets could spend big without any limits or checks, and that the campaign contributions of low-paid members would become marginal.

Another change was that candidates could not now receive funding or in-kind support from “entities”, as defined in the election procedures to include any informal association of UNISON members. It appeared that the procedures were ruling out the formation of campaign teams of UNISON members to support General Secretary candidates! As another change enabled the removal of candidates from the ballot at any stage in the election process without any ability to challenge their removal, this was of concern to some NEC members.

One NEC member pressed for the definition of “entities” to be clarified, given is apparent importance. The Officer responding said that this would be clarified by the Returning Officer for the election (an external role, appointed by the body UNISON would contract with to run the election) in the event of a candidate being ruled out. The NEC was being asked to approve procedures which were not defined and would only be defined in the event they were triggered.

5. Election of Chairs

At the end of the meeting, the NEC Committees met to elect Chairs and Vice-Chairs.