Brian Flanagan

Big story in today’s Mail on Sunday. While Matt Wrack was in charge of the FBU, members’ money was spent on a donation to a Labour MP with whom he was in an undeclared relationship. An FBU staffer was also sent to work in the same MP’s office. dailymail.co.uk/news/article…

🚨 NEW BLOG: Damning report into ‘hush money’ scandal exposes dire lack of transparency and accountability at top of FBU. ⬇️ campaignfbu.com/damning-repo…

This is not a short post. It is not a series of soundbites. Mistaken or falsification? The MW campaign team has recently sent a leaflet to some London branches. The leaflet is full of inaccuracies which they could have corrected if they had spoke to MW himself before sending it out. The MW campaign team has marred the election by producing material which misrepresents the facts. Some corrections to the misleading statements/ comments/ impressions created by the leaflet are set out below: Gillender Street. Jim Fitzpatrick, at the time an FBU official in London was the lead official in the FBU’s investigation team looking into that tragedy. Homerton 11. MW was not the lead FBU “accused’s friend (discipline rep for the Homerton 11. After the appointment of an experienced accused friend for all of the eleven members facing disciplinary action by the LFB, MW approached him being very clear that he wanted to be associated with the defence as with the issue in general. MW was brought in. Because MW had never performed as an accused’s friend in his previous 17 years as an FBU official it was agreed that because MW had no experience in the role that the experienced official would be the accused’s friend for ‘half’ of the 11 with MW being the ‘formal’ accused’s friend for the remainder in that role. In order to ensure that all 11 got the best representation, each would be the assistant to the other. The eleven were not sacked despite the chief officer at the time having sent a statement to all stations making clear that those involved would not be staying in the job. In the remaining four and a half years that MW was an official in London (and thereafter) he never performed the role of accused’s friend again. It is of note that that Homerton branch did not nominate MW during the nomination phase of this election. London Weighting – it is true that as the London region’s Regional Organiser MW had the role of the lead official for co-ordinating and undertaking campaigning at the divisional-level committees and at branches. The achievement of the increase in London Weighting Allowance via negotiation and discussion with the fire authority was undertaken by the EC member and the Regional Secretary of the day. 2002-2003 pay dispute. The plain fact is that all London Regional Committee (LRC) members played the central role in ensuring widespread and active support for the pay campaign and the industrial action. It is true that MW opposed the settlement, but the leaflet’s portrayal is that MW did that astride a white charger leading the London reps and members in that view. It simply wasn’t the case. It was a widely- held and widely-voiced opinion on the LRC and amongst London members. 2010 Mass sackings campaign. The campaign clearly did have the support of the Executive Council and all of head office- but that campaign was spearheaded by the London Regional Executive of the day - not head office itself. The dispute centred on the change of the duration of shifts of the 2-2-4 shift system with the London employer demanding the replacement of the 2x9s and 2x15s with 4x12s (days/ nights). The employer threatened to sack the workforce and re-engage on a revised contact. The dispute was fought with strike action by London members resulting in an agreement on the current 2x10.5s and 2x13.5s Challenging the high-rise BA procedures. This was challenged in the first instance by the national officer for H&S at the time (Sean Starbuck) and the-then AGS. The introduction of the new procedures in London was defeated by the work undertaken by the regional officials, the national officer and the-then AGS who together successfully won the argument via the decision of the independent H&S Advisory Panel (essentially an arbitration mechanism). MW played no direct role at all in delivering the success. Grenfell Tower. The risks associated with cladding were identified by the union and other stakeholders many times in the past. It was undoubtedly a tragedy waiting to happen with infrequent but serious examples of fires caused by use of flammable cladding and the other factors that contributed to building failure at Grenfell Tower. MW’s role was mainly confined to overseeing (on behalf of the executive council) the production of the FBU’s documentation produced by staff and lawyers, and liaison with the union’s legal representatives. The union did submit some very informative written submissions to the Inquiry, but unlike for example the Manchester Arena Inquiry never gave evidence from the stand at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (GTI). The evidence which was heard at the GTI concerning the failings of the LFB was provided by the 80+ firefighters (the majority of whom were FBU members) who gave first hand evidence of their actions at the fire but also the failures in training, operational policy and information concerning fire development in buildings with flammable cladding. This evidence given under oath, correctly, was not influenced or organised by the FBU. …………………………………………………………… It is important not to mislead members. But it is equally important not to exaggerate or to mis-describe the union’s role. The union’s integrity is vital when it comes to pursuing the union’s policies with politicians especially ministers. False narratives are easily and eagerly undone by those organisations which choose to diminish the status of the union and its arguments in the eyes of those same politicians for ideological reasons and/or in an attempt to promote their own standing. ……………………………………………………………………. A final note: In the leaflet, MW’s campaign team emphasise that some years ago MW was a North East London Area official. That is true. He was at one stage the Area Chair and later the Area Secretary. At that time the London FBU comprised five areas. The NE Area had 29 stations. It is noticeable, and won't be without good reason, that 5 of those stations nominated MW in this election whilst 7 nominated SW. In a similar vein, as the leaflet points out MW became the London regional organiser and subsequent to that the London regional secretary. It is of note, however, that only 6 London stations in total nominated MW whilst 54 nominated SW. Members at Homerton branch⬇️