|
From
9th April until the end of the month, three thousand
BBC journalists are being asked to vote for strike
action in response to an action of the most profound
significance possible for members of the NUJ.
On the
19th February, two BBC Arabic Service journalists
and NUJ members were dismissed.
Adli
Hawwari is a member of the NUJ National Executive
Council and Abdul Hadi Jiad had a complaint against
racial discrimination upheld in a landmark Employment
Tribunal ruling in 1999.
But,
even in the current era when a Labour government can
talk about imposing settlements, banning strikes and
compensating privatised companies for industrial action,
the circumstances of the two BBC journalists' removal
is shocking.
Both
men were summarily dismissed after a secret meeting
involving BBC Director-General Greg Dyke, World Service
Director Mark Byford and the BBC Head of Personnel
Stephen Dando.
Neither
man had been subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Neither of them was represented or even told that
their positions were coming under consideration. Both
were told that there could be no appeal.
In short,
the BBC's most senior officials decided that the industrial,
human and moral rights of their employees and the
terms of numerous agreements with trade unions could
be discarded at their absolute discretion.
To make
matters worse, in an attempt to divert the predictable
outrage of the journalists' colleagues, an email was
issued to thousands of BBC employees, naming the two
men and making a series of allegations regarding Dr
Hawwari's and Mr Jiad's personal conduct and behaviour
as trade unionists.
Their
offences were to instigate several internal grievance
procedures and external tribunal hearings, the last
of which was begun more than a year ago.
Also
cited were unspecified allegations that the two used
"unacceptable" language, were discourteous
towards colleagues and management and failed to accept
the findings of tribunals in cases that had been lost.
This,
the BBC contends, causes them concern over the health
of Adli and Abdul-Hadi's colleagues, "wasted"
management time and the use of public funds defending
the cases.
Troublingly,
the BBC statement also claims that their disaffection
with the men "causes a significant diversion
from the main business of running the Arabic Service,
at a critical time for current affairs in the Middle
East".
It is
partly this statement that has prompted the NUJ to
ask if the nationalities of the two men - one a Palestinian
and the other an Iraqi - were relevant to their removal
as war in Iraq loomed.
The
issues raised by this case are so diverse and serious
that it is difficult to prioritise them in terms of
their gravity.
The
World Service is funded by the British Foreign Office.
Is it mere coincidence that, on the eve of the most
contentious military action for decades, the department
should dispense with the services of a national of
the target country Iraq and another of Palestine where
severe consequences of the war have been anticipated?
If not,
why should the BBC cite the then impending hostilities
as being relevant to their disciplinary proceedings?
If the
BBC governors were truly concerned by the fact that
the two men were involved in industrial disputes,
why did the corporation dismiss them so many months
after the last grievance was initiated?
And
if the BBC has such faith in internal and external
disciplinary procedures why did the corporation decline
to use the existing legitimate mechanisms for removing
staff who are genuinely guilty of misconduct?
It is
clear that, if the BBC had legitimate grounds for
dismissing Abdul Hadi Jiad and Adli Hawwari, invoking
the normal procedures for dismissal would have been
the right and sensible course of action.
That
the BBC sacked two employees without warning, hearing,
representation or right to appeal invites accusations
that Adli Hawwari and Abdul Hadi Jiad were troublesome
- but right - in their insistence that something was
rotten at the heart of the Arabic Service.
But
regardless of the true motives for getting rid of
the workers - and at whose behest it was done - the
BBC have made a critical error.
In refusing
all NUJ and BECTU requests for dialogue that might
have achieved an agreed settlement, the BBC has attempted
to subvert all the accepted disciplinary and industrial
relations practices.
Should
they succeed, the Foreign Office funded department
could dismiss any journalist without just grounds.
That would have the most serious implications for
the impartiality of the World Service and, in turn,
put the lives of BBC journalists, reporting from countries
hostile to the UK, at risk.
And
to accept that management could disregard workers'
rights to a hearing, representation and recourse to
an appeal because "the decision has been taken
at such a high level" would be to surrender all
hope of meaningful employment protection.
Strike
action should never be undertaken lightly - it takes
nerve to risk the wrath of an employer and determination
to make sacrifices for even the most precious of principles.
However,
when all other options have been removed, only the
most difficult - and potent - response will suffice.
The
BBC has effectively asked its employees if they have
the nerve to defend their rights. The opportunity
to answer comes in the form of the strike ballot in
which the answer must be: "Yes - always".
Voting
overwhelmingly to strike will pose the employees'
own question: dare the BBC Directors fight a battle
they cannot win to defend their unjust actions?
The
united will of BBC workers, backed up by the support
of the trade unions, is a force that even Greg Dyke
cannot resist. In dismissing Adli Hawwari and Dr Abdul
Hadi Jiad, he gambled that such a will did not exist.
That was a serious underestimation of his staff's
character, integrity and determination.
In promising
that the NUJ would back strike action with all available
resources, General Secretary Jeremy Dear summed up
the situation: "The BBC have simply thrown some
of our agreements out of the window.
"It
is the ultimate betrayal - the betrayal of our reps,
our members and our agreements as well as a betrayal
of the values of the BBC.
"These
two colleagues have spoken out for others now we must
speak out for them."
|
