Earlier in August 2026, Maddison Wheeldon exposed, for the Canary and Skwawkbox, bullying and misogyny toward staff by Jack Clarke, husband of Unite union general secretary Sharon Graham. Skwawkbox first revealed Clarke’s conduct – and Graham’s attempts to have recordings of it destroyed – several years ago, but new and exclusively leaked union transcripts of those recordings puts flesh on the diseased bones of the pair’s behaviour. And now, more leaked documents explode the union’s attempts to deny, deflect and smear.
Boom, Unite
When Ms Wheeldon contacted Unite for comment on her revelations, Unite attempted its habitual deflection-by-smear. The union claimed that the transcripts did not show Clarke bullying staff. No, instead Unite’s lawyers insisted that they showed staff complaining about the previous Unite leadership. If it sounds like the Tories’ “the mess we inherited”, that’s because it is just like that.
Unite’s lawyers claimed that:
We can evidence that in reality those individuals were expressing disgust at what they viewed to be a culture of wrongdoing and corruption at the heart of their union under the leadership of Len McCluskey, Howard Beckett, and Steve Turner – as well as attacks being made against Sharon Graham at the time because she had recently decided to run against Steve Turner at the next General Secretary election.
Stretched beyond breaking point
If you think that sounds like a stretch, you’d be right. And just how much of a stretch will become clear very shortly. The elastic became even thinner as the lawyers continued:
In reality, the transcripts mostly document Unite staff members expressing their opinions regarding whether the McCluskey/ Beckett regime was implicated in collusion with blacklisting, corruption around the Birmingham hotel development, and whether resources from union contractors and organisations to which Unite was affiliated (including the ITF) was being used during internal elections. All these opinions were discussed frankly, after working hours in a supposedly private setting.
Graham campaigned for her first spell as general secretary on claims that there had been corruption under McCluskey, particularly concerning Unite’s Birmingham conference centre. Five years and a litany of smears later, Graham has not put forward any evidence for any of this. In fact, her more recent attacks have diminished to claims that there “may have been” wrongdoing. But months later, still nothing – while elected Unite officials criticised her own lack of transparency about the union’s finances.
But the idea that an investigation into Clarke’s conduct showed what the lawyers now claim is exposed as sick farce by another leaked document. This one is the appeal by one of the bullied staff against the union’s attempt to whitewash the bullying.
The staffer in Clarke’s department did not pull any punches about the nonsense whitewash. And he made absolutely clear that, as far as he was concerned, he was relentlessly bullied by Clarke, that the ‘inherited mess’ claim was ridiculous – and that the cover-up had destroyed his confidence in Unite as his employer.
And – as Skwawkbox noted last week – he and another complainant were ultimately paid off by the union to protect Clarke and Graham and make the issue go away.
That cover-up was completed – the union must have thought – when the records of the complaint evidence were destroyed, as Unite’s lawyers spectacularly admitted. But they weren’t destroyed – the originals survived and reached Skwawkbox and the Canary.
The appeal in Unite
Even the introduction to the appeal confirms that, contrary to the claims of Unite’s lawyers, even the whitewash found that Clarke “behaved in a way that supports allegations of angry and aggressive behaviour towards the whole team including shouting, swearing and displaying physical aggression“.
And it made perfectly clear that the complainant identified multiple omissions of his evidence from the final report to construct the whitewash’s “false account”:
On its own, this tears apart Unite’s attempted narrative to protect Clarke and Graham. But the complainant is nowhere near finished.
Smear ‘report’ vs “all facts”
The complainant follows his introduction by pointing out that Unite’s final report of the ‘investigation’ takes the extraordinary step of repeatedly smearing the complainants. And he points out how this is completely at odds with the comments of the investigators, who found the victims’ evidence and conduct to be factual and credible:
A consistent pattern in the both the main body of the Investigation Report and the findings is the multiple omissions of my evidence, interview statements, or explanations provided in my formal letter, where they would have been relevant to the report findings. Whether intended or otherwise, the result is that the findings represent a false account, which would influence the opinion of any reader who would not necessarily be aware of the missing relevant parts.
This appeal focusses on the findings part of the Investigation Report but as these include irrelevant sections to my grievance and baseless accusations made elsewhere in the report, where relevant I have sought to address this.
That I am focussing on the findings part of the Investigation Report does not mean I accept other irregularities or false, baseless and demeaning statements made by my colleagues that appear in the Investigation Report main body. I also do not accept the process was impartial.
Of note, in the interview with Roz Foyer on 10 August, 2018, Barbara Kielim from HR says ‘Both came across as being intelligent and were not overdramatising situation. Not full of narrative, it was all facts.’ As this was the conclusion drawn by Barbara, it seems strange that the final report should go on to leave out so many facts in the findings.
I am therefore in a position where I fully reject the ‘Findings’. I also reject the ‘Remedies and Recommendations’ that seek to return me into the same office as the person identified by HR as creating a ‘hostile environment’.
The 10-page appeal letter deals at length with the way in which the report breaks up the evidence against Clarke into separate sections to minimise and dissipate the abuse inflicted. It also cites instances in which investigators did not even make notes during interviews and highlights the use of organisers close to Graham to conduct them. For readability of this article, these are not quoted at length here.
But the outcome of these issues was an ‘investigator’ who ended up functioning as a rep or advocate for the accused bully:
Now that I have seen the interview notes, my concerns about [redacted]’s independence remain. In Jack Clarke’s interview, [she] states she is not his rep, but acts in a way that appears to represent Jack. ‘Ok we are happy to continue in good faith. If we aren’t happy with the line of questioning we reserve the right for him to go and get representation.‘
At one point in the interview, she intervenes to say: ‘They clearly have an agenda. They were recording for four months.‘ These are not the words of an impartial person. This statement has been omitted from the report findings, which would have given relevant context to my concerns. Further concerns over [her] impartiality appear in her statement where she accuses Myself and [redacted] of collusion, which she did without substance: ‘while I am not privy to exactly what evidence the formal grievance being submitted is…’.
Four months of recordings of bullying, abuse and misogyny – and Unite is now attempting to brush the evidence aside as merely showing Clarke being a bit over the top in his criticisms of then-general secretary Len McCluskey and others.
Remember again: the complainants were ultimately paid off by Unite to protect Clarke at Graham’s urging.
Reprisals
The complainant then describes how – even after Clarke had discussed beating up and stabbing a senior Unite official – the complainant feared going to Clarke’s boss, his wife Sharon Graham, because of potential “reprisals”. The final report had suggested his complaints were undermined because he had not approached Graham directly. But given Graham’s later attempts to have the evidence destroyed, and her intervention that led to the complainants being paid off to leave their jobs, this fear does not appear unreasonable:
Section v attempts to dismiss my concerns about the relationship between Sharon and Jack by suggesting that if I went to her with a letter I could have approached her whilst in the building. I witnessed and evidenced Jack’s volatile and bullying behaviour, and stated in my evidence how he turns on people who stand up to him (pg16). Couple that with my witnessing him going upstairs to beat up Andrew Murray (pg23, 24, 25), and having a recording where he says ‘I would stab Andrew Murray with a compass’ (pg25), l had cause to be concerned about informing his wife. I feared reprisals.
The husband and wife team of Sharon and Jack, represent a clear conflict of interest in my grievance. Any independent person would be concerned about a lack of confidentiality with this management structure and the additional complexity such a relationship poses to a grievance under their management.
I pointed out how the relationship exacebated [sic] my situation in the formal letter and how their relationship impacted on our working environment (pg 11), also in my evidence. … I had a very real concern that had I gone to Sharon or others in the Department such as Roz or Dessie, it could have gone back to Jack and my work life would have been made much worse. This situation created by the management structure is not of my making, but created by my Employer, Unite.
“Pace-setter” character assassination
The victim outlines attempts made – in a report into bullying and abuse by his boss – to destroy his reputation by attacking his job performance. But – as in this case generally – there were ‘receipts’. The worker who was supposedly complaining because he couldn’t do his job had been repeatedly praised for his work and given more responsibility:
I find it extraordinary that the findings of the report on my grievance about bullying, should contain baseless allegations made against me about my ability to do the work. My ability to carry out the work of the department should have no bearing on whether I was bullied and nor should it be in any way used to justify Jack’s behaviour. Yet, HR has deemed it important to include this in three separate sections. As HR have included these unsubstantiated allegations, in my view to deflect from my grievance against Jack, I feel inclined to refute them.
Section a} i ‘JC’s evidence was that he was hoping that AR would be able to ‘start delivering’ and contribute to the team efforts on production of reports.’
section a) ii asserts that it is ‘plausible’ that higher scrutiny would make a potentially underperforming employee concerned.
Section a) iii Also of significance is the timing of the grievance. [Redacted] has alleged that the ‘bullying’ has been going on for a lengthy period of time but he has been unable to identify the trigger giving rise to the grievance. I am inclined to accept that the trigger for him lodging the grievance was the reaction to the 2 poorly drafted documents that were produced by the team, which SG was unhappy with… These reports had failed on one or more of the aforesaid elements. It was the failure of the delivery which generated a strong response from JC and as a result…’
This is the first I have heard of these accusations. If my work was as bad as Jack and my other colleagues claim, then why did he not take formal action. There were seven clear and obvious opportunities for him to do so, both prior to my being employed by Unite and when employed at Unite. The report raises just one opportunity, which was a six-month probationary period, which was the only question put to Jack on this matter in his interview.
The victim then outlines the evidence exposing the smears:
Jack had researched me online and seen my work via my blog on NHS research. I was commissioned twice by Jack to produce reports for his Department on a freelance basis;
• During this period, I was told of the vacancy by Jack;
• Jack interviewed me and oversaw a written part of the application process;
• I received a one-year contract with a probationary period;
• I was s offered a permanent contract also with a probationary period; and
• I was given a 1-2-1 with Jack.I was approached by Jack Clarke after he found my research on the NHS. Based on this, and following a meeting, I was twice commissioned by Jack Clarke to write a report for the OLRU Department relating to the NHS campaign that was taking place in the Department before I worked at Unite. The report research in the second report was used as part of a campaign.
Jack mentioned to me that there was a vacancy coming up in their Department, which had my reports been insufficient, would have not been the case. I applied, and attended an examination process that involved writing and of course an interview. I was offered the job and was given a fixed-term one-year contract with a probation period, which I passed.
Following the end of the one-year contract, I was offered another contract (permanent), which also had a probation period, which I also passed.
I was given a single 1-2-1 meeting, which I had put in my evidence (pg7) but this was not mentioned in the report, which was another opportunity to act if my work was inadequate.
The evidence states: ‘In this meeting he told me that I was the most improved member of the team or in his words, a “pacesetter”.’ Jack had spoken to Maurice and Simon prior to the meeting. No notes were made, no goals set.
At any of these moments, and especially if as Jack asserts that I could not even fill out a box, Jack could have raised the issue of my work. He could have not offered me a second commissioned report; he could have not employed me in the first place; he could have given me a verbal or written warning, he could have not offered me a permanent contract and not allow me to pass that second probationary period.
All this misdirection, the complainant points out, was irrelevant to the admitted abuse by Graham’s husband Clarke:
My grievance was on bullying, not scrutiny and if greater scrutiny was planned, then it was not mentioned to myself. The report findings states: ‘I have not however put this to [redacted]’, which begs the question of why when I have not had a chance to reply does it end up in the findings.
This appears to be an attempt to paint me in a certain way, which is baseless and offensive. It infers that because I am alleged to be under-performing Jack was entitled to scream, shout, bully, demean, and threaten my job. Part of the reason why Simon became a second in command and explained in my evidence (pg2) was that Jack had to remove himself from the room because his behaviour was so disruptive: “this isn’t working” he said, and to avoid “blowing up.”
After providing examples of Clarke trying to blame him for Clarke’s own errors, the victim sums up what he and his colleagues had been subjected to:
In my time at Unite, I have received no formal action against me at any point, even though there had been many chances to do so. The opposite is true, that I was praised by Jack in the 1-2-1. Instead, I and others were subject to emotional aggression, threats to my career, and screaming and shouting on a regular basis. These could occur when Jack had a bad meeting with Sharon or an argument at his home. The accusations around my ability to work are baseless and for the first time are being made in interviews in an apparent attempt to deflect from the points in my grievance.
‘Cash grab’ smear
The complainant then points out that Clarke had claimed the complaints against him were a “cash grab” – and points out how much he had to lose for recording Clarke’s abuse – for months, remember – and exposing it:
In the report, under Jack Clark, it states that Jack considers myself and [redacted] colluded to make a ‘cash grab.’ In his interview he says: ‘…colluding together to get some dosh’.
I note both he and [investigator/organiser], came to their collusion conclusion. Jack has made no attempt to provide evidence whatsoever to back this allegation up and yet, this defamatory accusation has ended up in the Investigation Report (pg13).
If money were my main object, which I have at no point in this process mentioned, why would I potentially be giving up a rare Final Salary Pension and a very good wage approaching the age of fifty. As is known by Unite, age discrimination in the workplace is a recognised fact of people in the region of 50 and onwards.
Surely, if money was my motive, I would do what I could to cling on to such a job with such good benefits. The fact is that despite these excellent terms and conditions, Jack’s behaviour made me anxious to the point where I could no longer work under him and became ill. It Is with great concern that I find myself in this situation at my age. This accusation appears to be another cynical attempt to deflect from his own actions.
Ultimately, the two victims were paid off – but only after Graham personally intervened with McCluskey and it became clear their complaints were never going to be properly resolved.
“Unfortunate language”
Unite’s lawyers also claimed that the transcripts – clearly not grasping just how extensive the leak is – to substantiate the allegations against Clarke and Graham. That has already been exposed as farcical – four months of abuse, recorded and transcribed. They then repeat their claim that the “only charge he could make stick” was of “extreme language” about McCluskey and others
However, there is no evidence in any of these transcripts which substantiates any allegations made by you. It is notable that the member of staff referred to has been employed by Unite for over 25 years and never had a single complaint about his behaviour until his wife indicated that she would run as General Secretary. It is also notable that when these recordings were passed to Mr McCluskey the only charge that he could make stick was for “extreme language and rudeness in relation to senior figures of the union”
That risible claim is also shredded by the complainants appeal. The victim lists just a few of the months-worth of examples – recorded and transcribed – of Clarke’s behaviour and comments.
None of the examples – screenshotted below for clarity – mention McCluskey et al. All were directed at members of staff unfortunate enough to have to work under Clarke. Clarke did this, in the words of his victims, to terrorise them and other colleagues:
Jack chose his words for the purposes of creating fear, to humiliate, to demean, threaten and undermine those in the research team including me and others in other parts of the building.
Here is that extract:
Costly erasure from Unite
The appeal concludes by showing the employee expressing his wish to keep working for Unite – but that his physical and mental health would not allow him to return to an office with Clarke. These are hardly the words of someone trying to ‘grab cash’ and completely incompatible with Unite’s claim that Clarke just got a bit ‘unfortunate’ in his dislike for McCluskey. The appeal’s conclusion addresses the union’s attempts to do exactly what the victim most dreaded.
It makes damning reading:
Singled out
The report when focussing on this section has been selective, leaving out relevant evidence available to HR. My evidence both written and recorded shows bullying both in a singled-out manner and in a group manner when I was present. In particular myself and [redacted] were targeted because of a lack of Union knowledge, (see evidence pg8 16/05/2018) and how Jack Clarke told me it was lucky it wasn’t me when another colleague decided to resign {See pg 10 Persecution through instilling fear).
I notice these have been omitted, when these points are completely relevant to the findings on this point. I also note that based on the notes from Jack’s interview on 3rd September, 2018, he was not questioned on this.
Report Process
The process has added to a complete lack of trust between myself and Unite.
10.6 of Unite Dignity at Work Policy and Procedure (pg7) says that “(bullying) complaints will be investigated swiftly and confidentially … within 30 days where possible.”
Despite an acceptance that holidays impacted on some aspects of the investigations being completed, it has taken from 2nd August, 2018, when I submitted my Grievance Letter, until the 7th November 2018 for the Investigation Report to be delivered. This is unacceptable.
Repeated requests for the grievance outcome and to see meeting notes including from the informal process were ignored. (eg. see emails 16th and 23rd August, 29th September)…
In a section titled ‘Remedy’, the victim notes how Unite wanted to force him back into the toxic situation that had taken such a toll. And he points out that to do this, Unite was treating months of recorded abuse as misconduct by the victims:
Remedy
In the recommendations of the Investigation Report, it says that: ‘[Redacted] states in his grievance that he wishes to ‘continue working in my role as a researcher’. However, he told me that he was unable to return to work in ORLU currently, and was unlikely to be able to work in Central Office.’
The solution then is given that in order to allow for the working relationships to be rebuilt a meeting is facilitated between [redacted] and JC [Clarke] to discuss [redacted]’s return and how he will be managed by JC’s deputy which is likely to be SC.’ This shows a scant disregard for my well being.
Rather, it reveals that Unite has no intention of pursuing either that option or the other recommendation of an agreed role with the Chief of Staff. The recommendation is based however on the outcome of the grievance that Jack Clarke has put in for ‘entrapment’ against me for having taken covert recordings.
You didn’t misread that. After his bullying was captured in recordings, Clarke tried to claim that he had been ‘entrapped’ – that he was the victim, not the perpetrator. And the union was siding with him, not them:
In other words, even though the recordings have been used as evidence to uphold part of our grievance, Unite have viewed the recordings as a misconduct worthy of a disciplinary procedure. Not only this, but I was threatened with a disciplinary twice by HR in the midst of a grievance for making these recordings.
[Redacted] has made it apparent that if Jack’s grievance goes ahead, I am likely to be found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed.
The way this Grievance has been handled by Unite from the beginning to this point has led to a total breakdown in trust and confidence between me and my employer.
Ultimately, both victims were persuaded or pressured to accept substantial payments in return for leaving their positions.
This is what Unite claims constitutes “no evidence… which substantiates any allegations made by you”. The denial falls apart like a cheap suit when held up against the evidence. There is a lot more to come.
Clarke did not change his spots when his wife took over the union. His staff have gone on strike over his abuse, while most of the women in his department quit citing his bullying and misogyny. Unite, under Graham, targeted the workers for their grievance against her husband.
The leaked Unite documents make clear that this is anything but the first time.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
From Canary via This RSS Feed.