The Unite union is spending a considerable amount of money on court cases against three anonymous, little-followed X accounts – and on taking legal action against the X platform to obtain the names behind the accounts – apparently to protect general secretary Sharon Graham’s husband Jack Clarke. The inclusion of the union as a claimant almost certainly means that Unite is paying all the case costs.

Unite mired in complaints

Clarke was promoted to run a newly-created ‘Bargaining and Disputes Unit (BDSU) shortly after Graham took over the union in 2021. Union insiders said that Unite’s usual approval procedures for the promotion were not followed. Clarke had been on a final warning from Unite for bullying and threats toward subordinates.

The ‘Caseboard’ site lists details of ‘Unite the Union and another v content posted…’, not with names of those accused of defaming the claimants, but ‘Persons Unknown’:

The union also launched a ‘Norwich Pharmacal‘ suit against X, to force it to provide details of who runs the three targeted accounts:

The available paperwork does not mention which comments were allegedly defamatory. Of the three X accounts mentioned in the lawsuit, @sharonsunite has been deleted. Unitealliance1 is still sporadically active but no posts appear to mention Clarke – perhaps as a result of ‘housekeeping’.

The third account, ‘nomatez74701’ does mention Clarke. For example, in April 2025 it asked Unite executive council (EC) members why, of all the union’s department directors, Clarke doesn’t have to report to the EC on his activities:

It is also highly critical of Sharon Graham.

Allegations of abuse

In 2018, before Graham became Unite general secretary, she asked colleagues to destroy evidence of bullying and misogyny gathered by staff working under him in his previous role. In December 2024, Graham’s lawyers admitted that, following her take-over, the union did destroy the evidence.

During Graham’s tenure as general secretary of Unite, she has been constantly surrounded by allegations of abuse and anti-union behaviour. This includes her conduct in yet another dispute by staff complaining about the behaviour of her husband and his allies.

BDSU staff have been in dispute with the union and Clarke over alleged bullying and abuse by Clarke and his cronies. As already noted, these are far from the first such allegations against Clarke. Staff have also accused Graham and her management team of employing intimidation, suspension and anti-union tactics against the staff in the dispute, outraging Unite’s National Industrial Sector Committee (NISC) for the print and graphics sector and the leaders of two unions representing Unite staff and officers.

Yet more allegations

So bad has this alleged conduct been that more than 90% of Unite staff working at the union’s Holborn HQ voted for strike action. Three – some say four – of the five women who worked in Clarke’s department since Graham formed it and put him in charge of it have left, with union sources saying that they also alleged bullying and abuse. The Unite union staff branch unanimously condemned Unite’s abuse of its staff and the influential Officers National Committee (ONC) has accused Graham of using Murdoch-esque anti-union tactics against workers and against Unite officers trying to unionise and take collective action.

And on the executive council, Graham’s allies used expensive lawyers and legal process to block the removal of the chair – a Graham factionalist whose handling of key issues led to him losing the confidence of many ‘exec’ members – a tactic the union has used repeatedly, at huge cost to members.

Unite panic

Skwawkbox put in an enquiry to Unite’s press office about the union’s decision to spend more members’ money on lawyers and court fees to pursue anonymous X accounts with small followings. Following the union’s recent pattern, the response to this request came from the union’s legal team.

The lawyer’s letter said that the court had granted the ‘Norwich Pharmacal’ order and X had provided information relating to the users behind the accounts, but that Unite’s “undertakings” to the court prevent it from saying who they are except in the lawsuit. The lawyers also refused to say how much members’ money Unite had spent on the case so far.

They confirmed that they were representing Jack Clarke for libel and that “in the case of Unite only, for breach of confidence”.

In a separate “statement for publication” they told the Canary:

Unite makes no apology for ensuring that lies are not told about the union and it has a duty of care to protect its employees when deliberate mistruths are told about them. That commitment includes challenging Big Tech to ensure that those who use anonymous accounts to libel and defame our staff or falsify the union’s financial position, are held to account.

The claim that Unite “ensures that lies are not told about the union” makes interesting reading given that the accounts are small and that no legal action was ever attempted against Skwawkbox’s reporting on Clarke’s bullying and misogyny, or Graham’s attempts to have the evidence against him destroyed. The legal period in which Unite could do so has long since expired.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

From Canary via This RSS Feed.