This is about trust and proper process: an explainer ahead of the 10 February Certification Officer hearing in Blake & McGaughey v UCU, concerning alleged non-compliance with UCU’s election rules in the 2024 general secretary election.

Last week Ewan McGaughey and I shared information about a case we lodged with the Certification Officer regarding the 2024 UCU general secretary election. The Certification Officer (CO) has determined that the case should proceed to a hearing, which is scheduled for 10 February. Members who wish to observe the hearing online can do so by emailing the Certification Officer’s office.

I set out some of my reasons for pursuing this route with Ewan on social media (here, here and here). Our case (Blake & McGaughey v UCU) is listed on the CO’s website here, and has also been reported in Times Higher Education and FE Week. It concerns a series of complaints about the use of union resources during an internal election, and whether UCU complied with its own election rules.

Who and what is the Certification Officer?

The Certification Officer is the statutory regulator responsible for overseeing trade unions’ compliance with their own rules and with relevant law. Quite a few members have asked what this process involves, and I have noticed some understandable confusion about what taking a case to the Certification Officer does and does not mean.

A Certification Officer hearing is a regulatory process. The process is limited in scope. It cannot decide political questions and it does not replace internal democratic debate. It is not a criminal trial or a civil court case. Nonetheless, UCU has chosen to be represented in that process by a King’s Counsel, while Ewan and I are representing ourselves. I note this simply to underline the seriousness with which the union is treating the issues raised, and the imbalance members face when concerns about rule compliance cannot be resolved internally. You can read more about how the process works here. 

If a complaint is upheld, the available remedies are regulatory and intended to secure compliance with the union’s own rules. In this case, the question is whether UCU acted in line with its election rules, particularly those governing the use of union resources during a contested election.

Why the Certification Officer route?

Following the very close result of the 2024 general secretary election, Ewan and I received evidence that raised serious questions about whether UCU had complied with its own election rules, particularly in relation to the use of union resources during the election. Some of that evidence was provided by whistleblowers who required anonymity in fear of repercussions in an already very difficult working environment for UCU staff.

We exhausted all available routes to ask the union to address these issues and were left with the reality that there was no internal process capable of independently testing that evidence or resolving the questions in a way that could command confidence. Leaving those concerns unanswered would have meant accepting ongoing uncertainty about whether a contested election was conducted in line with the union’s own rules.

I believe strongly in participatory, member-led democracy, and in unions being able to hold themselves to account through their own democratic structures. For that reason, turning to an external regulator does not sit comfortably with me, and I recognise that it will not sit comfortably with many members. With no effective means of accessing independent scrutiny inside UCU, we therefore concluded that taking the case to the Certification Officer was necessary as a last resort.

We should be able to expect that elections are conducted in line with our agreed rules, and that shared, member-funded resources are used fairly. This is a basic requirement for our union to function with credibility and trust.

That credibility underpins our collective strength backing branches fighting to defend members’ jobs, and as we organise together for decent working conditions, job security and pay. Members are being asked to organise in difficult circumstances, to take collective action, and to trust that decisions are made fairly and in the collective interest. Where there is unresolved uncertainty about whether our own democratic processes have been properly followed, that trust is undermined.

Whistleblower anonymity?

That some key evidence underpinning our case was provided by whistleblowers who need the protection of anonymity reflects the current difficult, dysfunctional context of UCU as a workplace in recent years. The whistleblowers’ identities have been verified by the Certification Officer.

In recent years, UCU as an employer has been in repeated dispute with its own staff, who are represented by Unite UCU (LE127). This has included an earlier successful dispute to defend the jobs of two co-leads of a project addressing postgraduate casualisation. The current, long-running Safe and Professional Workplace dispute is now over two years old. It includes allegations of trade union victimisation, breaches of agreed policies and procedures, and serious health and safety concerns. Health and Safety concerns also resulted in the Health and Safety Executive issuing UCU with a Notification of Contravention by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 2023 regarding workplace stress. UCU staff are due to take further strike action beginning this week, centred on the trade union victimisation of their Health and Safety Officer.

Where staff raising concerns have faced disciplinary action, restructuring, or prolonged dispute, it is not difficult to see why individuals might fear repercussions for speaking openly, particularly where concerns relate to senior leadership, governance, or the use of union resources. In that context, whistleblowing is not just a product of the failure of our internal democracy but a clear signal that “normal” routes cannot be trusted to function safely in the current context.

Why has it come to this?

A Certification Officer hearing has a limited and specific role. It cannot resolve wider organisational problems or substitute for internal democratic accountability. What it can do is determine whether the union has complied with its own rules in relation to a contested election, including rules governing the use of union resources.

This situation does not sit in isolation. In recent years, UCU’s internal democratic culture has been under sustained pressure. Decisions taken by elected bodies are not always implemented, spaces for scrutiny and challenge have narrowed, and raising concerns has too often been met with hostility rather than engagement. In that context, formal accountability mechanisms can feel brittle, and informal ones unsafe. 

This wider context has been reinforced by the circulation of WhatsApp messages, now part of the evidential record, which illustrate a culture in which challenge is personalised and dissent framed as bad faith. Their existence helps explain why some individuals felt unable to raise concerns openly.

Democratic organisations depend not only on formal rules, but on a culture in which questioning, scrutiny, and disagreement can take place without fear. Where that culture weakens, confidence in internal processes goes with it. The nature of the comment provided to Times Higher Education by a UCU spokesperson last week exemplifies this. Rather than engaging with the substance of the governance issues raised, it framed the existence of the complaint itself as a bad-faith attack, reinforcing how difficult it currently is to have confidence in internal processes. These are the circumstances in which independent regulatory scrutiny becomes a necessary safeguard. 

On solidarity, governance, and bad-faith arguments

I have seen some commentary about this case raise our support for Unite UCU (LE127) and their dispute with UCU as an employer, as if it undermines the basis of our complaints. It does not. The hearing on 10 February will concern specific questions about whether UCU complied with its own election rules. Information about the current disputes between Unite UCU and UCU as an employer is relevant only as context for understanding why key evidence underpinning our case has been provided on the condition of qualified anonymity for whistleblowers.

The Unite UCU disputes and this Certification Officer case are not the same issue, and they should not be treated as such. But it would be a mistake to ignore the fact that similar standards are being tested in more than one area of the union’s life. Patterns in how concerns are handled, how scrutiny is received, and how power is exercised, matter.

These are analytically distinct processes, but they are normatively linked. Whether in relation to staff employment or the conduct of an internal election, the same basic standards apply: accountability, rule-compliance, and protection for those who speak up. When those standards appear compromised across multiple contexts, it points to problems of leadership culture and institutional responsibility.

As an NEC member, I take my governance responsibilities very seriously. I reject the notion that exercising those responsibilities, whether through raising concerns at NEC or through this Certification Officer case, can be dismissed as factionalism, politically motivated bullying, or bad faith. We must be capable of holding more than one thing at once: standing in solidarity with workers facing victimisation, and insisting that our union complies with its own rules and standards. A functioning, credible union depends on both.

Why this matters, and what happens next

This case is about trust. Taking a case to the Certification Officer is not a preferred route for resolving issues inside a union. It has been time-consuming, bureaucratic, and exhausting. But we have pursued this route because serious questions about rule compliance could not be tested internally in a way that commanded confidence. It also matters that any ruling will place documentation in the public domain.

The hearing on 10 February will consider specific questions about whether UCU complied with its own election rules in the 2024 general secretary election. It will not resolve wider political disagreements or the broader challenges facing the union. Those challenges remain, and members must be given space for constructive, open debate that allows disagreement to be worked through and new approaches to organising, bargaining, and campaigning to emerge.

Whatever the outcome, this process matters because it goes to whether members can trust that the rules we collectively agree are followed, and followed fairly.

Members who wish to observe the hearing on 10 February can contact the Certification Officer’s office here providing their name. The hearing will take place online via Zoom.