DOCSLIB.ORG

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of ORAL EVIDENCE to Be Published As HC 156-Xiv

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of ORAL EVIDENCE to Be Published As HC 156-Xiv UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 156-xiv HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE BLACKLISTING IN EMPLOYMENT TUESDAY 5 MARCH 2013 HARVEY FRANCIS Evidence heard in Public Questions 2046 - 2235 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday 5 March 2013 Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair) Graeme Morrice Pamela Nash Sir James Paice Mr Alan Reid Lindsay Roy ________________ Examination of Witness Witness: Harvey Francis, Executive Vice-President, Human Resources, Communications and IT, Skanska UK, gave sworn evidence. Q2046 Chair: Gentlemen, welcome to this meeting of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. As you will probably be aware, we started with an investigation of health and safety in Scotland and have now moved on to blacklisting, because it became clear that blacklisting was one of the issues affecting health and safety matters in Scotland, particularly in the construction industry. First, I will ask you to introduce yourselves. I understand that Mr Francis has a statement that he then wishes to read out. In fact, the Clerk is just about to remind me, that before I ask you to do that, we want to put you under oath. (Harvey Francis and Simon Hall were sworn) Mr Francis is the witness; Mr Hall is here as an adviser, rather than as a witness. Mr Hall can whisper in Mr Francis’s ear, rather than slipping him notes, but, as was the case previously when people brought folk along, he is not here to give evidence himself. Mr Francis, who are you and why are you here? Read us your three paragraphs. Harvey Francis: Thank you, Chairman. My name is Harvey Francis. I am executive vice-president of human resources, communications and IT at Skanska UK plc. I am a director of that company. I sit on the board and on the executive management team. I am responsible for all human resources matters within Skanska UK plc and have been in post since September 2008. I joined Skanska from outside the construction industry a year before that, in October 2007. Mats Williamson, the chief executive officer of Skanska UK plc at the time this issue came to light, in March 2009, had hoped to be able to join me before the Committee today. However, as I think the Committee is aware, regrettably he is unable to attend today. I will therefore deal with the points Mr Williamson was to cover. I would like to make it clear that I have never personally used the Consulting Association. I was not personally involved in Skanska’s use of the Consulting Association, and I had not heard of the Consulting Association or what it did until Skanska was contacted by a journalist just prior to the Information Commissioner’s Office serving an enforcement notice on the Consulting Association in March 2009. 2 Q2047 Chair: It may be worth while just now to clarify some points on the sub judice rule. In your statement, which has been circulated to members and will appear as part of the record, you mention that you want to have some reservations about what you say to us on some issues. I ask the Clerk to give us the legal advice that we have had about how this applies. Eliot Wilson: I will simply say that the House’s sub judice resolution does not engage in this particular case, because you have not been formally named as defendants and the date for the court case has not yet been set down. It is also worth saying that anything you say to the Committee is, of course, protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be used in a court. Q2048 Chair: To take account of the fact that you have some reservations about some matters being explained in full to us, we agreed before starting the meeting that some of your evidence could be taken in private at the end of the formal hearing, so that we would have another hearing. This time it would be in private. Obviously records would be taken, and we would want to use that as material we might build on, but it would not be publicly disclosed at this time. As I understand it, it remains the position of the parliamentary authorities that it is then up to us to decide when or whether we wish to use that evidence in any way. I would like to start by clarifying a couple of points relating to what you have said to us today. You said that you joined Skanska in October 2007. In what post was that? Was that also in personnel? Harvey Francis: Yes, it was. At the time, the organisation was split into two core halves: infrastructure, which looked after the civils businesses, and building, which looked after the core construction. I was hired as the HR director for the infrastructure side of the business. I also had responsibility for looking at the way HR was organised and structured, and moving to a different model of delivery. Q2049 Chair: So you had HR responsibilities from October 2007. Harvey Francis: That is correct. Q2050 Chair: First, can I clarify the involvement of Skanska and its predecessor companies with the Economic League and the Consulting Association, as far as you are aware? Harvey Francis: As far as we understand it, there was no link with the Economic League; certainly, our investigation has shown no links with that. Q2051 Chair: Does that apply to your predecessor companies? I refer to the companies you took over, Trafalgar House and Kvaerner. Harvey Francis: That is not clear. I would need to come back to you on that one. Q2052 Chair: We take the view that you as a company inherited the assets but also the liabilities of any of the companies that you took over and that, therefore, the question of what part Skanska or its predecessors played in the Economic League and then the transition to the Consulting Association is relevant. Can you tell us about Skanska’s initial involvement with the Consulting Association? Harvey Francis: Are you referring to Skanska or our predecessor companies? Chair: Either/or—you tell us. Harvey Francis: Okay. Would you mind if I take off my jacket? Chair: No, but I think you should stop there. Harvey Francis: I give you my assurance I shall. 3 We conducted a full investigation into our historical use. It is clear that Skanska and our predecessor companies did use the services of the Consulting Association for reference checking. They also used the news cuttings service and some of the industrial relations-type forums that were run. Q2053 Chair: So you were full and active members of the Consulting Association. Harvey Francis: Yes. Q2054 Chair: You put information in and took information out. Harvey Francis: Yes, the investigation indicates that we both put in and took out. Q2055 Lindsay Roy: What was the nature of the news cuttings service? What was the focus of the information? Harvey Francis: I have never actually seen the cuttings. But from talking to the people who did receive them, I understand that it was pretty much as Ian Kerr outlined when he presented evidence to the Committee—just cuttings from extremist press and things of that kind. As I said, I have not actually seen the copies myself. Q2056 Lindsay Roy: So that did not come out in your investigation. Harvey Francis: There were no hard copies, just people talking about the fact that the cuttings existed. When I talked to people, it did not seem that the cuttings were of any particular value or use. They were something that people read if and when they had time. Q2057 Lindsay Roy: During your investigation, how far did you probe into the nature of these cuttings? Harvey Francis: Probably not hugely, because the primary focus of the investigation was very much on what was happening on the ground—our involvement in the referencing service, primarily. That is what we wanted to get under the skin of, so that we could decide what had happened, get the fullest account we could, and decide what steps we needed to put in place to ensure that it would not happen again. Q2058 Lindsay Roy: Would it be fair to say that that part of the investigation was not particularly robust? Harvey Francis: I would not say it was not particularly robust. I guess it was viewed as of less consequence than the referencing service. That was a judgment call that I took. Q2059 Sir James Paice: Good afternoon. Can you clarify the other aspect of this— the fees that you paid? We understand that you paid £118,000 between 2005 and 2009. Have you been able to uncover any evidence of what services you were getting for those fees? Harvey Francis: Yes, absolutely.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IN the HIGH COURT of JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY VETTING INFORMATION GROUP LITIGATION Amended Pursuant to an Order of 29 November 2013
    Claims listed in the CIVIG Group Register IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY VETTING INFORMATION GROUP LITIGATION Amended Pursuant to an Order of 29 November 2013 BETWEEN: VARIOUS CLAIMANTS (as listed in the attached Schedule CIVIG Group Register) Claimants - and - VARIOUS DEFENDANTS (as listed in the attached Schedule CIVIG Group Register) Defendants _________________________________________________ RE-AMENDED GENERIC PARTICULARS OF CLAIM __________________________________________________ These Re-Amended Generic Particulars of Claim are intended to be read in conjunction with the (Amended) Claimant Specific Particulars of Claim and Schedules of Loss. PARTIES 1 The Claimants are individuals who work or have worked in the construction industry. Further details in relation to each Claimant are to be found in (Amended) Claimant Specific Particulars of Claim. In these Re-Amended Generic Particulars of Claim and in the (Amended) Claimant Specific Particulars of Claim, unless otherwise specified, all references to the employment or engagement of any Claimant or other construction worker are intended to include work on the basis of any “employment” status, including employment, self-employment, ‘false’ self-employment and engagement via an agency, sub-contractor or other tripartite arrangement. All references to ‘employment’, ‘work’, ‘recruitment’, ‘engagement ’, ‘job’ or related or similar terms should be construed accordingly. 1 The Defendants are (a) companies (both known and as yet unidentified) which operated in the construction industry at all relevant times and were members of the Services Group of the Economic League (“SGEL Defendants”) and/or the Consulting Association (“CA Defendants”) and 1 (b) individuals who were officers and/or employees of such companies at the relevant times and represented the companies in relation to the Services Group of the Economic League (“the Services Group”) or the Consulting Association and/or who acted as officers of the Services Group and/or the Consulting Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Blacklisting: Anatomy of a Scandal Relations Labour
    CRI Industry practice Industry practice Blacklisting: anatomy of a scandal Labour relations The blacklisting scandal that erupted in 2009 is only now coming to a head. In April a decision is expected on whether four separate lawsuits against the UK’s largest contractors can be combined into one – lawsuits that together could be worth hundreds of millions pounds. Separately, the contractors’ attempt to limit their liability with a compensation scheme foundered in February amid acrimonious talks with representatives of the blacklisted workers. As the battle lines continue to form, David Rogers interviewed the whistleblowers to uncover how the scandal came to light. Here he explains what it means, what happens next, and asks what it is about the UK construction industry that gave rise to blacklisting in the first place For 40 years and more it had been rumoured that employers in In most cases, it was the board director in charge of HR. Nobody the British construction industry maintained and shared a list of else in the subscriber company could be called. As Kerr later told people to be kept off their sites. The evidence was plentiful, but it a parliamentary select committee: “Everybody recognised that this was anecdotal and circumstantial. In any case, some people were was secret, sensitive information.” known to be troublemakers. Construction is a big industry but What follows is the story of how the blacklist came to light, a closed world, and word gets around. Just because some people the way it operated, and what happened after its existence was couldn’t get a job no matter how many hundreds they applied for, exposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Counter-Subversion, Deep Dissent and the Logic of Political Policing Connor Woodman December 2018 About the Author
    Spycops in context: Counter-subversion, deep dissent and the logic of political policing Connor Woodman December 2018 About the author Connor Woodman is the 2017/18 Barry Amiel & Norman Melburn Trust Research Fellow, hosted by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the following people who read earlier drafts and offered useful comments: Koshka Duff, Kat Hadjimatheou, Raphael Schlembach, Eveline Lubbers and Richard Garside. Thank you to Helen Mills for her support and guidance through the entirety of the project, and to Tammy McGloughlin and Neala Hickey for their production work. The Research Fellowship was provided by the Barry Amiel & Norman Melburn Trust. The Trust aims to advance public education, learning and knowledge in all aspects of the philosophy of Marxism, the history of socialism, and the working-class movement: www.amielandmelburn.org.uk. Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 2 Langley Lane, Vauxhall, London SW8 1GB [email protected] www.crimeandjustice.org.uk © Centre for Crime and Justice Studies December 2018 ISBN: 978-1-906003-71-5 Registered charity No. 251588 A company limited by guarantee. Registered in England No. 496821 Cover photo: Black Power demonstration and march, Notting Hill, London, 1970. Credit: The National Archives. www.crimeandjustice.org.uk Contents Foreword ............................................................................ 1 Introduction ........................................................................ 2 Counter-subversion: protecting
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Affairs Select Committee
    UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 156-x HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE BLACKLISTING IN EMPLOYMENT TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 MR IAN KERR Evidence heard in Public Questions 1043 - 1420 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday 27 November 2012 Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair) Jim McGovern Iain McKenzie Pamela Nash Simon Reevell Alan Reid Lindsay Roy ________________ Examination of Witness Witness: Mr Ian Kerr, former Chief Officer of The Consulting Association, gave sworn evidence. Q1043 Chair: Welcome, Mr and Mrs Kerr. The clerk will now put you under oath. (Mr Ian Kerr was sworn) Thank you. Could I welcome you to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee? As you are aware, we have been conducting an investigation into blacklisting and various aspects thereof that flowed on from an inquiry that we had into health and safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Friday, 6 November 2020 1 (10.00 Am) 2 MS PURSER: Good Morning
    1 1 Friday, 6 November 2020 2 (10.00 am) 3 MS PURSER: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Day 5 of 4 the opening statements in Tranche 1, Phase 1 of 5 the Undercover Policing Inquiry. My name is 6 Jacqueline Purser and I'm the hearings manager. 7 Today we will hear representations from 8 core participants represented by Paul Heron 9 the non-police non-state core participant group, 10 the Fire Brigades Union and Unite and 11 the National Union of Mineworkers. 12 For those of you in the virtual hearing room, please 13 remember that unless you are asked to speak by 14 the Chairman, please turn off both your camera and 15 microphone, as Zoom will pick up on all noises and you 16 will be on the screen. 17 I will now hand over to our Chairman, 18 Sir John Mitting, to formally start proceedings. 19 Chairman. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 21 Good morning. Mr Scobie, before I ask you to begin 22 your opening statement, I must correct something that 23 I said to Dr O'Driscoll at the conclusion of yesterday's 24 proceedings. 25 He expressed concern that the Inquiry should 2 1 investigate three issues: the interaction of undercover 2 units with the private sector, the international 3 element, and the relationship between 4 the Security Service and undercover units, in particular 5 the SDS. 6 I wrongly said that the first two were in my terms 7 of reference but the second wasn't; an obviously 8 nonsensical statement.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory, Accompanying the Map, Presents All the Company Information in One Document
    Corporate Watch Wreckers of the Earth: a guide to ecocidal capitalism in London February 2020 For maps and more see: https://corporatewatch.org/londonmap2020/ Table of Contents Wreckers in London....................................................................................................................4 1. Primary planet-killers.......................................................................................................................6 1.1 Hydrocarbon majors..................................................................................................................6 1.1.1 The national oil companies................................................................................................6 1.1.2 The multinational “oil majors”...........................................................................................9 1.2 Hydrocarbons: smaller oil companies, frackers and UCG......................................................12 1.2.1 Smaller “conventional” oil and gas companies................................................................12 1.2.2 The frackers: “unconventional fossil fuels” specialists...................................................14 1.3 Oil and gas services and shipping............................................................................................16 1.3.1 Oilfield services...............................................................................................................16 1.3.2 Liquefied Natural Gas......................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Blacklisting in Employment
    House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee Blacklisting in Employment Written evidence Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry into Blacklisting in Employment are included. List of written evidence Page 1 Kenny Newton 1 2 Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2 3 Unite 4 4 Supplementary Unite 10 5 Gangmasters Licensing Authority 11 6 Carillion 18 7 Additional Carrillion 26 8 Alan Wainwright 27 9 UCATT 37 10 Information Commissioner’s Office 39 11 Ian Kerr 41 12 Cullum McAlpine, Director of Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd. 45 13 John Swinney MSP 49 14 George Fuller 53 15 Harvey Francis, Skanska UK PLC 56 16 Balfour Beatty 58 3 Written evidence submitted by Kenny Newton My name appears on the Consulting Association data base along with another 279 whose “file” contains only a name and nothing else. If one uses their imagination you could multiply many times the number of people that this may have affected. As to having proof of being blacklisted well that could be in the majority of cases difficult to prove. I could write a book on the number of times that I have been victimised by my past employers. While working for a number electrical construction companies I was deliberately kept off jobs and in many cases worked has the sole electrician on construction sites. Most companies are quite subtle and are usually economical with the truth when you approached regarding such matters. I would like to enlighten you with one such case that happened to me. I was working for electrical company on the Shell Oil Refinery in Ellesmere Port I had been employed at the time for over a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction and the Modern Slavery Act Tackling Exploitation in the UK
    Construction and the Modern Slavery Act Tackling Exploitation in the UK TACKLING EXPLOITATION IN THE UK MAY1 2018 Construction and the Modern Slavery Act Tackling Exploitation in the UK Researched and written by Emma Crates, freelance writer and journalist. Follow Emma on Twitter @CratesEm Designed by Demographik: www.demographik.co.uk Published by the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) Twitter: @theCIOB and @CIOBPolicy Facebook: www.facebook.com/theCIOB LinkedIn: search ‘CIOB’ YouTube: CIOBTV CIOB, 1 Arlington Square, Downshire Way, Bracknell, RG12 1WA, UK Registered Charity No. (England and Wales) 280795 and (Scotland) SC041725 www.CIOB.org policy.CIOB.org Tel: +44 (0) 1344 630 700 Email: [email protected] The views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the CIOB nor anyone connected with the CIOB. Neither the author nor CIOB accept any liability arising from the use of this publication. Any data or analysis from this report must be reported accurately and not used in a misleading context. If using any information from the report, then its source and date of publication must be acknowledged. Copyright CIOB 2018 2 Construction and the Modern Slavery Act Tackling Exploitation in the UK Some definitions Forced labour Most situations of slavery or human trafficking are covered by International Labour Organization’s (ILO) definition of forced labour: “...all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily.”1 Exploitation There is no clear legal definition of exploitation but United Nations and European Conventions say that exploitation includes forced labour, servitude and slavery.
    [Show full text]
  • 8599 Ending Bandit Capitalism Carillion A4 Final[Digital]
    Ending Bandit Capitalism: Learning the lessons following Carillion’s collapse www.unitetheunion.org Contents Preface 3 Introduction 4 1. Carillion’s Collapse 5 2. The Directors 10 3. Pensions 14 4. Government Involvement 16 5. Role of auditors 19 6. Outsourcing 22 7. Construction Projects 24 8. Legal Issues 28 Conclusion 33 Recommendations in full 34 2 Preface A year on from the collapse of Carillion there is little evidence the government has learnt any of the lessons it taught us. Chris McAndrew Millions racked up in debt, tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs and pensions, and thousands of supply chain businesses at risk of collapse. This was all because the corporate auditors failed to hold Carillion’s misbehaving managers to account, and the government turned a blind eye, proceeding to award contract after contract to a firm which had issued numerous profit warnings. It was well known that Carillion engaged in dodgy corporate and employment practices even before the company toppled. They blacklisted workers who raised health and safety concerns, changed their pay policy to make it harder for executive bonuses to be repaid, imposed crippling payment terms on its suppliers and paid out dividends of over £500 million while running up a pension deficit of almost £600 million. This kind of bandit capitalism sums up Tory Britain all too well. Their privatisation dogma is lurching our public services from crisis to crisis and their approach to corporate governance has been deliberately underwhelming. For far too long the Tories have turned a blind eye to bad corporate practices and as Carillion demonstrated, it is always the workforce that pays the price.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC PETITION NO. PE01481 Name of Petitioner Mr Pat Rafferty
    PUBLIC PETITION NO. PE01481 Name of petitioner Mr Pat Rafferty, Mr Harry Donaldson, Mr Harry Frew on behalf of Unite, GMB, UCATT Petition title End to blacklisting in Scotland Petition summary Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct a full, independent public inquiry into the effects and extent of blacklisting in Scotland and for the inquiry to examine and determine which companies have been awarded public contracts, to investigate how to introduce ethical procurement policies and how to ensure that companies who continue to practice blacklisting are banned from tendering for future public contracts. Action taken to resolve issues of concern before submitting the petition Trade unions have called for a full disclosure of the information obtained from the Consultancy Association (CA), and an investigation into the links between construction employers, the police, security services and the CA. Information in the public domain from the CA shows that personal information about workers resident in Scotland is held in the Blacklisting files obtained by the Information Commissioners Office following a raid conducted in 2009. The clandestine nature of blacklisting makes it very difficult to prove. However anecdotal evidence provided by Trade Union members suggests that blacklisting is still a practice undertaken by unscrupulous employers in the construction industry today. Serious concern remains about this now illegal practice and the impact of this activity on the job prospects, career progression and remuneration of trade union members. We also believe that it undermines the crucial work undertaken, on behalf of the whole industry, by Trade Union Shop Stewards and Health & Safety Representatives who may fear retribution for undertaking lawful trade union duties.
    [Show full text]
  • Roofing Today 62 Jan16
    RoofingIssue 62 magazine TODAY December/January 2016 Roofing Today’s Professional Roofer Campaign This is the final edition featuring the Professional Roofer Campaign. Roofing Today is grateful for all the support from contractors and we are pleased to be playing our part in helping to raise standards across the industry. Launched in September, the Professional Roofer Campaign provides advice and guidance from industry-leading experts for contractors who want to improve and grow their businesses. Professional Roofer offers advice and information on l Better health & safety l Improving workmanship l Building customer confidence The Professional Roofer Campaign Portal collects together all print and online resources in one place and can be accessed from the Roofing Today website homepage: www.roofingtoday.co.uk. Are you proud of your work? Then tweet us @RoofingToday your completed project photos using #professionalroofer and we will feature it on the Professional Roofer Wall of Fame! Page 4 News Page 8 Grow Your Business by Focusing on Workmanship Simon Dixon, Sandtoft Roof Tiles Page 10 How Can Professional Roofers Safeguard Their Health? Bryan Henesey, IOSH Page 12 Will the National Living Wage Make Us Poorer? Page 16 Contractors Get Set to Benefit from the Insurance Act 2015 Page 18 Using Drones for Roof Surveying Lionel Firn, Hopgrove Productions Page 20 Training to Win Tony Burke, Avonside Group Services Page 22 Werner Ladder Product Road Test Page 24 Caution: Sale Ahead Don Waterworth Page 26 How About Not Working at Height? John Cunningham, Metrotile UK Page 32 Getting to the Top James Fisher, Bilco Page 34 Predictions for UK Roofing 2016 Page 36 DACH+HOLZ: The Final Countdown Page 37 Product News Page 43 Industry Events Diary Publisher: David Cowell - [email protected] Roofing Today Magazine is published by Editor: Dr Claire Griffiths - [email protected] Construction Media Publishing Ltd 31 Seymour Terrace, Seymour Street, Liverpool L3 5PE Administration: Jemma Daly - [email protected] Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Westminsterresearch Blacklisting and Its
    WestminsterResearch http://www.westminster.ac.uk/westminsterresearch Blacklisting and its legacy in the UK construction industry: employment relations in the aftermath of exposure of the Consulting Association Druker, J. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Druker, J. (2016) Blacklisting and its legacy in the UK construction industry: employment relations in the aftermath of exposure of the Consulting Association Industrial Relations Journal 0019-8692 , which has been published in final form at https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/irj.12139. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of Westminster aims to make the research output of the University available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the authors and/or copyright owners. Whilst further distribution of specific materials from within this archive is forbidden, you may freely distribute the URL of WestminsterResearch: ((http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/). In case of abuse or copyright appearing without permission e-mail [email protected] Blacklisting and its legacy in the UK construction industry: employment relations in the aftermath of exposure of the Consulting Association. Janet Druker This paper explores responses to the exposure of blacklisting in the UK construction industry in the period following the closure of the Consulting Association (CA) in 2009. It asks whether employer collusion to blacklist in this way has been terminated and concludes that it is now largely of historical interest although other forms of anti- union activity continue. It highlights particularly the historic and continuing importance of ‘double breasting’ and reports on divergent employer paths in the aftermath of the exposure and subsequent closure of the activities of the Consulting Association.
    [Show full text]