It is perhaps not surprising that Mr. Black`s statements do not contain any strike clauses in this agreement. However, there is strong evidence. The 2015 GMB Congress 164 request, entitled “G4S SECURE SERVICES RECOGNITION AGREEMENT,” supported the qualification. So what was the union charged by Congress (which represents the wishes of the members)? It is certainly a refusal, but in view of the recognition and collective agreements that have a lifespan well over four years, the assertion that Tim Roache did not approve a non-strike contract is not the same as saying that there is no agreement, when that means that an unfortunate violation of the fundamental principles of the union – the protection of the right to return to work – did not occur directly on his watch. Jpenny also says something that tells me a mind-blowing naivety. There`s something superficial… dilettante… Pathetically eager to think that people share our values when they participate in a demonstration /walk in “solidarity” with X, Y or Z… even if the march and solidarity will not bear fruit… That is, we still have Trident, Blair has always invaded Iraq. So even my MP can have a food bank box in his office that gives a care veneer while doing everything he can to undermine Jeremy, and show all his actions that he only cares about his ambition.
Congress believes that no battle can be won with G4S as long as the non-strike clause exists. The recognition agreement between G4S and GMB dates back to 2006 and was then referred to as “Landmark” and signed in the House of Commons, Allan Black having signed on behalf of the RAD. Mr Black said at the time that it was not a formal vote for strike action and indicated that workers would be prepared to strike if no agreement was reached. When I see on social media a bit of from people I wouldn`t normally react to. But to be clear. @GMB_union has never signed a no strike agreement in the four years I`ve been Gen Sec and I never will. If our members vote for the strike, they will, and with our full and total support This may be of some relevance, Because any doubt that the no strike agreement refers to the 2006 Landmark agreement is withdrawn when in June 2016 gmbh published an update of progress (see page 24) on what it had done to renegotiate the G4S No Strike Agreement (page one says it is just “from June 2016” and so during Tim Roache`s tenure as secretary general, so soon). The response documents responsibility for the removal of the non-strike clause was addressed to the National Secretary Section. The full text is worth mentioning, since the officials of the gmbh union expressly agree that there is no strike agreement with G4S: the agreement between G4S and GMB has not been published, so there will always be an element of doubt. The recent allegations are the publication of a response from the DWP (whose G4S offices are secure) of 2 October 2019 (if recently) to the DEPUTy secretary general of the PCS, John Moloney, who confirms that “we [DWP] confirm that G4S DWP has confirmed that it has no strike agreement with GMB. The non-strike agreement is the national recognition agreement of G4S Security Services UK. This congress calls on the SAR to work to renegotiate the existing recognition agreement with G4S Secure Services to remove the “No Strike” clause in it.
Tim Roache, general secretary of LA GMB Union, is on the defensive following a strike ban agreement between the G4S, which ensures security in employment centres and in the EU. Whatever the rights and injustices of the case, no strike agreement has absolutely a place in the industrial strategy of a responsible union, and I hope that the GMB – and all the other unions – will take steps to ensure that existing agreements, which also require a thorough review of all recognition agreements that are yes-multiple, are eliminated.