On 5 August the Trades Union Certification Officer published a decision regarding a complaint about the democratic nomination process for UNISON’s 2025 National Executive Council elections. This is not simply a technical dispute but raises the question of who should decide how a trade union organises: the members or an unelected state official?
UNISON’s 1.3 million members work across hospitals, schools, universities, councils, care homes, police services, libraries and many other public services. More than two-thirds are women, many in low-paid or part-time jobs at the sharp end of austerity. They organise to defend pay, jobs, services, health and safety, and equality. Employers have repeatedly tried to weaken those struggles, including by trying to divide workers. The Certification Officer’s decision must be understood in that context.
The complaint made by a UNISON member concerned a disabled trans woman member standing for a disabled women’s seat. The Officer concluded that UNISON had breached Rule D 2.6 by failing to ensure that the eligibility criteria were met. They said that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, a person’s sex remains their biological sex.
But UNISON’s Rule D 2.6 does not refer to the Equality Act. It says: “There will be an additional two representatives, reserved for disabled members, one female, and one general, elected from a national constituency of all regions. No member shall be a candidate for election to the disabled members’ seats unless they have been nominated by at least two branches or a regional disabled members self-organised group”. In 2010, the Equality Act made no reference to ‘biological’ sex and the union’s reserved women’s seats date from its formation in 1993, 17 years before the Act.
The Certification Officer’s decision explicitly acknowledges that “it is not to be assumed that all the terms of the contract will be found in the Rulebook alone and as such some terms may be informed by the trade union’s custom and practice”. Yet UNISON’s established practice was disregarded in the decision. Trans women have long participated in UNISON women’s conferences and self-organised events and have stood for reserved seats. This was not an improvised arrangement created for one election but reflected an equality policy debated, tested and reaffirmed across the union’s democratic bodies.
The nominee in question was nominated by at least seven branches. She is a young activist who sits on the disabled members’ committee and has been elected vice-chair of her regional local government service group. She stood on a socialist programme opposing cuts, privatisation and low pay, all of which hit disabled members especially hard.
It was following the Supreme Court ruling on For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers in April 2025 that the Act was changed to refer to ‘biological sex’. The Supreme Court cannot be relied on to represent the needs of the working class. For example, election after election have delivered Scottish parliaments in support of independence and the Scottish TUC backs a second independence referendum. But in November 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish parliament does not have the right to organise a second referendum. Unlike UNISON’s NEC, the Law Lords in the Supreme Court are not democratically elected.
The Certification Officer is appointed by the Secretary of State on a salary of £125,000, not elected by trade union members. The Officer is a product of decades of anti-union law, including the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Tories’ Trade Union Act 2016. That Act expanded the Certification Officer’s investigatory role in ways that trade unions warned would intrude into internal democracy, and also introduced turnout thresholds and other restrictions designed to make strike action harder as shown in UNISON’s recent local government ballot.
Trade unions have never accepted that every law or court ruling is fair. Workers have at times defied legal restrictions when basic rights were at stake. Thatcher’s poll tax was an unfair law that 18 million people organised to defy – and defeat. UNISON is proud that its union branding colours, green and purple, refer to the struggle of the suffragettes which famously included civil disobedience in the fight for women’s rights.
Working-class struggle was key to winning equal pay, abortion rights and more, but how has the Equality Act faired? The Equality Act has not ended women’s inequality. The gender pay gap remains entrenched; violence against women and girls is widespread; workplace harassment continues; and access to justice is limited. The Act has not prevented austerity from disproportionately impacting women both as low-paid workers and as users of public services.
Cuts to local government, social care, refuges and childcare have transferred costs and responsibilities back onto families, with women carrying much of the burden. By contrast, collective trade union organisation has delivered concrete victories, including the Glasgow home-care workers’ equal-pay campaign, which secured hundreds of millions of pounds for a predominantly female workforce. That victory came from collective organising, workers’ solidarity and strike action. Workers only win in the courts what they have fought for in the workplaces and communities.
Defending women and defending trans people are not separate struggles. The oppression and discrimination which both face have their origins in a capitalist society in which gender oppression and class exploitation are inherent. Trade unions can unite members in campaigns for well-funded and resourced public services, secure jobs, decent pay, safe workplaces, and an end to discrimination. UNISON’s 2025 women’s conference reflected this approach, backing campaigns on the gender pay gap, women’s health, childcare and trans solidarity, while affirming that women’s rights are not diminished by trans people gaining rights.
In response to the Certification Officer’s decision a national union website statement said: “UNISON remains committed to campaigning to change the law to reflect our policy and understanding that trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary identities exist”. (6 August) But while such statements sound supportive, the immediate challenge is to mobilise members in a campaign to defend democratically agreed policies. The danger is that if unions retreat on their own equality policy in the face of unfair decisions and guidance, they will be less prepared to resist employers seeking to use the new legislation to override existing equality gains workers have made in the workplace. A struggle is needed.
The union must defend its established approach and preserve unity in the face of these attacks. One UNISON branch website explains that ‘Black’ “is a political term which embraces the shared history of nations which have experienced colonialism, the transatlantic slave trade and who continue to experience inequalities in modern day life due to the colour of their skin… It is an agreed term being used across UNISON”. This may also need to be defended against interfering representatives of the capitalist establishment.
If the union’s leadership accepts the Certification Officer’s decision it is in danger of transgressing the union’s own rules. The UNISON rulebook reinforces inclusion. Rule A 3 says: “The Union shall seek to ensure that discriminatory acts are not committed against any persons by the Union, or by its organs, members, or officers, on grounds such as race, gender, sexuality, gender identity, disability, age, creed or social class”.
Rule D 2.14.1 says: “The National Executive Council shall have the power to monitor, review and implement the principles of proportionality and fair representation throughout the Union”. ‘Fair representation’ it later explains as the ‘broad balance of representation of members of the electorate’, considering different factors. In other words, the union members are developing a means by which to achieve the best representation in its leadership at every level.
This dispute demands a wider debate about the Certification Officer. Shouldn’t they have to explain their decision to the branches who nominated the member concerned? If such a role is to oversee trade unions, why should it not be democratically accountable to the movement, paid at a rate determined by unions, and subject to recall?
UNISON should challenge the decision of the Certification Officer. This is part of preparing for situations where employers attempt to impose divisive or discriminatory practices. Union organisation can allow for negotiated solutions based on the different needs of workers and service users rather than leaving decisions to management. Union reps need support to challenge transphobic and homophobic behaviour while also fighting sexism, pregnancy discrimination, unequal pay, unsafe conditions, and cuts to services supporting women.
UNISON has an opportunity to blaze a trail in showing how unions can lead the fight for LGBTQ+ rights and women’s rights in this period when all the established gains won by workers are being challenged by a capitalist class demanding we pay for the crisis. That means mobilising the membership in a struggle against the establishment in all its guises.
Sarah Sachs Eldridge