KEY POINTS:
No organisation would relish being confronted by the curious case of Shawn Tan, the Green Party supporter who has flip-flopped philosophically to become the 10th-ranked candidate on Act's party list. But saddled with it the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union is. On learning of Mr Tan's candidacy, it suspended him from its call centre, where he has worked as an organiser since March. That action says much about the EPMU, not least its unwillingness to brook dissension.
The union has sought to paint the suspension as the result of Mr Tan's breaching its staff collective agreement. It says that any EPMU staff member wishing to seek public office needs to have the union's permission. This is necessary because a candidate needs time off work, whether paid or unpaid, and, in terms of workload, this needs to be accommodated by the union. The EPMU says Mr Tan had not sought that permission at any time, even though he was reminded of the requirement in July. This is disputed by Mr Tan.
That version of events avoids, as it must, any hint of the suspension being politically motivated. It falls a long way short of traversing this whole episode, however. It is reasonable to ask how the EPMU would have responded to a staff member who had agreed to stand for the Labour Party but had not told the union of his candidacy. Certainly, there would be no talk of suspension. Any breach of the collective agreement would be quickly and conveniently overlooked.
Any admission of politically motivated action against Mr Tan would, however, place the union in breach of the 1993 Human Rights Act. This prohibits discrimination against employees on the grounds of "political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion". The exception to this is employment of a political nature, but that does not extend to the EPMU.
Clearly, Mr Tan has put the union on the spot. His candidacy for Act sees him subscribing to views, especially in the employment relations arena, that are diametrically opposed to those of the EPMU. It also opens up the possibility of further embarrassment if other union members choose to stand for right-wing parties. Already, memories of the flight of the likes of Richard Prebble and Sir Roger Douglas from Labour to Act stir discomfort. That, however, provides no excuse for what is a flouting of human rights legislation.
Referring to Mr Tan's case, the EPMU's bombastic national secretary, Andrew Little, has told the union's members that "there is no right to be released by your employer to do out-of-work activities that have a bearing on your employment". That hardly amounts to ringing encouragement for participation in the democratic process. Mr Tan's case suggests, in fact, that any fostering of candidacy is extremely selective. Indeed, the contractual condition requiring permission to stand in elections could be seen as enabling a scrutiny of candidate suitability as much as it allows the union to juggle workloads while a person is campaigning.
Standing for Labour at a general election would doubtless be approved on the basis of candidates standing aside from their work at the EPMU or taking annual leave while they were on the hustings. It should be no different for Mr Tan, simply because he is standing for a party of different philosophical persuasion. He may be an embarrassment and his candidacy may have elements of a political stunt, but unions are in the business of promoting workers' rights. Not least of these is the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of political belief. That, not the minutiae of a collective agreement or Act's feeble accusation of racism, is the essence of this episode.
