As Skwawkbox has reported, the Unite union is spending significant amounts of members’ funds in legal actions to identify, then sue, the people operating three little-followed X accounts. Their motives…to protect Unite general secretary Sharon Graham’s husband.

In defence of its actions, Unite said that it:

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.

But it seems that not all accounts are equal when it comes to this “ensuring”.

On Monday 26 January, Skwawkbox asked Unite:

In response to my enquiries last week, you said that 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”.

The anonymous X account ‘Forgotten genius’ has repeatedly attacked Unite under Sharon Graham and, unlike the three already discussed, is still very active. Can you point me to the Norwich Pharmacal action for that account? If not, why has none been undertaken?

Has Rule 27 action now been started against the three who were ‘Pharmacaled’?

‘Norwich Pharmacal’ is a mechanism for litigants to force social media companies to disclose information about its users. Unite used it against three accounts with a relative handful of followers. ‘Forgotten Genius’ has thousands.

Skwawkbox also asked whether the union had begun any of the disciplinary actions — which its Rule 27 mandates must be taken first, before starting legal action — against the three account-holders its Pharmacal action identified.

Following its usual pattern, Unite did not respond. Instead, as usual, its lawyers did.

The lawyers said that Unite was not going to be providing any comment in response to Skwawkbox’s enquiry – and only that the union is ‘considering’ whether to use Rule 27. Note that it’s Rule 27, not ‘suggestion’ 27 or ‘item for consideration’ 27.

And, specifically, the lawyers said that Unite was not going to explain why it is ignoring highly-followed accounts criticising the union, while it is pursuing three accounts with few followers. Unite has already declined to answer why it is spending members’ funds protecting Jack Clarke, Sharon Graham’s husband.

And Clarke is quite a case to be judged worth spending money to defend. Below is a summary of his record — and Graham’s in relation to him — drawn from earlier coverage. It includes Unite’s admission that it destroyed evidence gathered by (mostly female) complainants against him.

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”.

Featured image via Facebook/Sharon Graham

By Skwawkbox

From Canary via This RSS Feed.