A shocking story is emerging from Yunus’s continuing battle to clear his name within his Unison union.
The Trade Union Certification Officer has ruled that Unison broke its own rules when it denied Yunus the right to re-stand for election to its health executive.
During the course of the hearing Yunus was given access to two “interim reports” sent to the union’s national executive in February and June 2007. The reports follow Yunus’s suspension from office in January 2007.
February’s report says that Unison’s investigation into Yunus was to be widened after “several of the complainants reported to the northern region that they were being subjected to a campaign of intimidation, in the form of anonymous phone calls at various times throughout the day and night and break-ins and window breakages to their homes.
At the Certification Officers’ hearing, a Unison representative said panic alarms had been installed in some of the homes, though he failed to say if and when the police had been informed or involved.
Northumbria Police have confirmed to Yunus that if break-ins and window breakages did take place there should have been proper investigation. They also confirmed that Yunus’s name was not given as a suspect.
Police have also said that if panic alarms had been fitted that would have warranted an investigation, and again, if Yunus’s name had been given as a possible suspect he would have been seen by them.
Yunus is now demanding that Unison’s executive answers a number of questions about the allegations.
- If these allegations were included in documents concerning him (with the implication that they might in some way be connected to his case) why was he never made aware of them?
- What attempts were made to establish these alleged events happened?
- If the police were informed, why was Yunus’s name not given as a possible suspect if the union believed he might be involved?
- By whose authority can the executive decide to investigate criminal matters without involving the police?