Dear Department of Finance (Northern Ireland),

Further to your response to my earlier FOI request regarding the legitimacy of the industrial action taken by NIPSA members on April 26th 2023 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t... and noting that you only refer to and confirm compliance with Article 113 of the Order I submit the following by way of a further request.

The fact that the NIPSA General Secretary wrote to you on March 9th to advise you of the ballot outcome confirms that she was in receipt of the scrutineers report and would suggest that she was aware of her legal obligations under parts 29 and 108-112 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1995... .

It is surprising therefore that she failed to comply with the obligation imposed upon her to communicate the ballot results to those entitled to vote, her membership, which she could have done simultaneously.

For clarity Part 29 reads:

Right to a ballot before industrial action

(1) A member of a trade union who claims that members of the union, including himself, are likely to be or have been induced by the union to take part or to continue to take part in industrial action which does not have the support of a ballot may apply to the High Court for an order under this Article.

In this Article “the relevant time” means the time when the application is made.

(2) For this purpose industrial action shall be regarded as having the support of a ballot only if -

the union has held a ballot in respect of the action -

in relation to which the requirements of Article 106 (scrutineer) so far as applicable before and during the holding of the ballot were satisfied,

in relation to which the requirements of Articles 108 to 112 were satisfied,…

Article 112 reads:

Information as to result of ballot

112. As soon as reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of-

(a) votes cast in the ballot,

(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,

(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and

(d) spoiled voting papers.

Despite her prompt compliance with article 113 the General Secretary failed to afford her obligations to her membership as defined under 112 the same priority and instead waited several weeks after the actual industrial action took place to comply with Article 112 by way of an "FAQ update" dated May 15th 2023 published on the NIPSA website https://nipsa.org.uk/attachments/article...

This would appear to suggest, as per Article 29, that the industrial action taken on April 26th did not have the support of the ballot as the obligation under Article 112 had clearly not been met in advance of same. Consequently it would appear that NIPSA members were induced to take industrial action without the support of a ballot and at considerable financial detriment to themselves at a time of financial crisis.

Whilst I cannot reasonably expect you to know why the General Secretary deliberately held off advising the membership of the ballot results as required under article 112, and noting that there appears to be no retrospective remedy available to her to address non-compliance, I would appreciate confirmation of the following;

The steps the NICS has taken to establish the legitimacy or otherwise of the industrial action taken by NIPSA members on April 26th 2023 and any ongoing or planned action(s) on foot of the ballot in question.

The legal basis under which deductions have been made from employee salaries in respect of same.

In the circumstances does DoF consider the deductions to be fair, legal and appropriate.

Copies of all communications between DoF & NIPSA on this issue.

Yours faithfully,

Brian Goodfellow