Government’s failure to implement Windrush decisions is unlawful

The government’s decision to scrap recommendations made by an independent review into the Windrush scandal was unlawful, says UNISON today (Tuesday).

Over the next two days at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, the union will be putting forward legal arguments to support the case brought by Windrush scandal victim Trevor Donald.

Mr Donald is challenging the decision taken in early 2023 by the then home secretary Suella Braverman to scrap three of the recommendations hailing from the Windrush Learned Lessons Review.

When Wendy Williams first published her independent review into the government’s treatment of the Windrush generation in 2020, Priti Patel, who was home secretary at the time, had accepted all 30 of them.

Back in December 2023, Mr Donald was granted permission to seek a judicial review of Suella Braverman’s actions. At the same time UNISON and the Black Equity Organisation were also given the go-ahead to join his case.

All parties are arguing that the Home Office acted unlawfully when it ditched the three recommendations.

These covered a commitment to establish a migrants commissioner, a strengthening of the powers of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, and the holding of reconciliation events for affected individuals and their families.

UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea said: “People who had come to Britain to live and work legally – many of them in the UK’s key public services –found themselves stripped of their rights, with their lives in ruins.

“The public was horrified at the hostile environment being whipped up by the government and appalled at the vile treatment of so many ordinary working people, too many of whom had already faced racism throughout their lives.

“The Learned Lessons Review was an attempt to put right the damage. All its recommendations had been accepted, but then Suella Braverman came along and threw a wrecking ball into the proceedings.

“This judicial review will hopefully right those wrongs and win for the many people in the Windrush generation who’ve been treated so very badly by the government.”

The 2018 Windrush scandal revealed that numerous individuals who’d come to Britain from the Caribbean had been treated appallingly. They’d been wrongly detained, threatened with deportation or kicked out of the country entirely. People affected lost their homes, their jobs, contact with their families and were denied access to health services and benefits.

Notes to editors:
– The claimant in the judicial review, Trevor Donald, arrived in the UK in 1967, aged 12, and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1971. But when he visited Jamaica in 2010 to attend his mother’s funeral, he was prevented from returning to the UK and exiled for nine years before the scandal finally came to light.
– UNISON’s application to the High Court was supported by evidence from UNISON member Michael Braithwaite, a London teaching assistant, who works in particular with children with special educational needs. Michael lost his job due to the Windrush scandal, which he called “a total nightmare that destroyed my life.” 

– UNISON is the UK’s largest union with more than 1.3 million members providing public services in education, local government, the NHS, police service and energy. They are employed in the public, voluntary and private sectors.

Media contact:
Anthony Barnes M: 07834 864794 E: a.barnes@unison.co.uk

The article Government’s failure to implement Windrush decisions is unlawful first appeared on the UNISON National site.

Government’s failure to implement Windrush decisions is unlawful

The government’s decision to scrap recommendations made by an independent review into the Windrush scandal was unlawful, says UNISON today (Tuesday).

Over the next two days at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, the union will be putting forward legal arguments to support the case brought by Windrush scandal victim Trevor Donald.

Mr Donald is challenging the decision taken in early 2023 by the then home secretary Suella Braverman to scrap three of the recommendations hailing from the Windrush Learned Lessons Review.

When Wendy Williams first published her independent review into the government’s treatment of the Windrush generation in 2020, Priti Patel, who was home secretary at the time, had accepted all 30 of them.

Back in December 2023, Mr Donald was granted permission to seek a judicial review of Suella Braverman’s actions. At the same time UNISON and the Black Equity Organisation were also given the go-ahead to join his case.

All parties are arguing that the Home Office acted unlawfully when it ditched the three recommendations.

These covered a commitment to establish a migrants commissioner, a strengthening of the powers of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, and the holding of reconciliation events for affected individuals and their families.

UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea said: “People who had come to Britain to live and work legally – many of them in the UK’s key public services –found themselves stripped of their rights, with their lives in ruins.

“The public was horrified at the hostile environment being whipped up by the government and appalled at the vile treatment of so many ordinary working people, too many of whom had already faced racism throughout their lives.

“The Learned Lessons Review was an attempt to put right the damage. All its recommendations had been accepted, but then Suella Braverman came along and threw a wrecking ball into the proceedings.

“This judicial review will hopefully right those wrongs and win for the many people in the Windrush generation who’ve been treated so very badly by the government.”

The 2018 Windrush scandal revealed that numerous individuals who’d come to Britain from the Caribbean had been treated appallingly. They’d been wrongly detained, threatened with deportation or kicked out of the country entirely. People affected lost their homes, their jobs, contact with their families and were denied access to health services and benefits.

Notes to editors:
– The claimant in the judicial review, Trevor Donald, arrived in the UK in 1967, aged 12, and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1971. But when he visited Jamaica in 2010 to attend his mother’s funeral, he was prevented from returning to the UK and exiled for nine years before the scandal finally came to light.
– UNISON’s application to the High Court was supported by evidence from UNISON member Michael Braithwaite, a London teaching assistant, who works in particular with children with special educational needs. Michael lost his job due to the Windrush scandal, which he called “a total nightmare that destroyed my life.” 

– UNISON is the UK’s largest union with more than 1.3 million members providing public services in education, local government, the NHS, police service and energy. They are employed in the public, voluntary and private sectors.

Media contact:
Anthony Barnes M: 07834 864794 E: a.barnes@unison.co.uk

The article Government’s failure to implement Windrush decisions is unlawful first appeared on the UNISON National site.

Strike-breaking legislation is unlawful, argues UNISON in High Court

General Secretary Christina McAnea (centre) with UNISON’s legal team outside the High Court this week

UNISON is challenging the government this week over regulations that allow employers to hire agency staff to replace striking workers.

Alongside the NASUWT and TUC, whose case is on behalf of eleven unions, UNISON asks that the High Court declares the government’s removal of regulation on agency workers unlawful. Together, the unions represent millions of workers in the UK.

Since 1976, it has been illegal for employers to introduce or supply agency workers to replace workers who are taking part in a strike or industrial action.

However, in the heat of last summer’s rail strikes, then Secretary of State Kwasi Kwarteng rapidly removed this regulation without consulting trade unions. 

Since July 2022, agencies have been permitted to supply temporary workers to replace striking workers.

UNISON, the TUC and NASUWT argue that this is unlawful on two grounds: firstly, that trade unions were not fairly consulted by the government on these measures. Secondly, that the removal of this regulation amounts to an unlawful interference with workers’ right to strike.

Change without consultation

The Conservative government’s intention to allow employers to undermine strikes with agency workers was first included in their 2015 manifesto, with a declaration to “repeal nonsensical restrictions banning employers from hiring agency staff to provide essential cover during strikes”. 

In 2015, the government ran a consultation on proposals to remove the regulation on replacing striking workers with agency workers, but did not progress the proposal.

It was not until 2022 – two governments later and no further mention of regulating strikes in subsequent manifestos – that the government decided to remove agency workers regulations without consulting unions. By that time, all unions faced significant limits to taking industrial action due to the Trade Union Act 2016.

The government claims that the 2015 consultation is sufficient, despite multiple new governments and major changes in the labour market since Brexit, COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis.  

Representing UNISON, Michael Ford KC said a “reliance on seven-year old consultation is so unfair as to be unlawful.”

In her witness statement, UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea described how “ever since the financial crisis in 2008, the pay of our members has not kept pace with inflation, and it is this which is generating greater calls for industrial action.” 

Ms McAnea also described the significant negative impact of the Trade Union Act 2016 on the union’s ability to take strike action. 

Protecting the right to strike

The right to strike and engage in collective bargaining falls within article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act. 

UNISON told the judge in a written case outline: “The replacement of strikers by agency labour has the potential to have a chilling effect, or render the right to strike illusory”. 

Given that taking strike action is such a core area of trade union activity, the unions believe that restrictions on the right to strike amount to a violation of article 11 ECHR.

The union also stated that the use of agency workers “defeats the very purpose of a strike, which is to place economic pressure on an employer.”

The case was heard this week at the Royal Courts of Justice. Mr Justice Linden has reserved judgment and is expected to make a decision on the case within the next month.

The article Strike-breaking legislation is unlawful, argues UNISON in High Court first appeared on the UNISON National site.