The Keele Students’ Union Tribunal Ends And A New Year Begins, Late December 1984 To 3 January 1985

With thanks to Dave Lee for the “loan” of this frosty Horwood picture.

For those who haven’t been avidly following this saga, the Shrewsbury Industrial Tribunal relating to our Union Committee’s dismissal of the Students’ Union bar managers was supposed to conclude 19 December…

…but required two additional days, which were set as Friday 28th and Monday 31st December.

Keele was bitterly cold when I returned to the campus on 27 December and remained so until we left on 31 December. It also felt incredibly bleak too, with almost nobody around.

The diary barely tells the tale, but let me translate my scrawl:

Thursday 27 December – Got up quite early [at parents’ house] – came back to Keele. Kate came over for a while.

I recall that Kate (now Susan) Fricker and I were a little spooked by the bleakness and the fact that Ralph was wandering around the campus. I don’t think he intended to spook or intimidate us, I think more likely Ralph was struggling to come to terms with what was happening to him and was walking a lot, as people with heavy weights on their minds often do.

In my (I now think false) memory, Kate asked to stay at the flat and I slept on the floor, but the diary says “came over for a while”, so on reflection I think the idea of her staying was mooted, but Kate decided in the end to spare me the floor and returned to her own flat for the night.

Friday 28 December – went to Tribunal – seemed to go OK – lazy evening in.

Saturday 29 December – shopped and read in day. Went to Koh-I-Noor with John & co in eve.

I think we sensed that Friday, perhaps for the first time, that the Tribunal was going our way. It was mostly Kate under the cosh that day, plus summing up from both sides, if I remember correctly. I certainly got the impression that Kate was fending off the cross-examination questions well and that the members of the panel were getting more than a little frustrated with interrogation by cross-examination that wasn’t really getting anywhere.

Would you believe the Koh-I-Noor restaurant is still there, forty years later, in Newcastle-Under-Lyme – click here. “John & co” suggests that Kate didn’t opt to join us that evening but that some other members of the committee were with us. Pady and Andy I’d guess. Perhaps also Pete & Melissa. The Koh-I-Noor was a good choice when we had vegetarians with us, as, in those days, Indian restaurants tended to be the only type of meat-serving restaurant that really “got” vegetarianism.

Sunday 30 December – Lazy day in reading etc. Kate & I went to see Ghostbusters in eve. Latish night.

Ghostbusters was THE movie to see in December 1984. I remembered that I had seen it “around the time the movie came out”, but did not remember, until I saw this diary entry, that I had seen it with Kate on the night before the tribunal judgment.

Forty years on, I have “cog. dis.” as to whether that particular movie on that particular evening was especially appropriate or especially inappropriate in the circumstances.

Great movie. The theme song had charted at the end of that summer, so John & I had been playing it at regular discos (i.e. not our 60s/Motown/Northern Soul ones) for some months. It charted again over Christmas when the movie came out. You know you want to hear it…and maybe even shimmy around your living room to that infectious rhythm:

When we returned to Shrewsbury on the Monday morning, we were given the judgment quite quickly, in summary form, with the promise of a full judgment to follow in writing. Basically the tribunal had unanimously found in our favour.

The Evening Sentinel summarised that oral judgement the next (publishing) day:

Sentinel Tribunal Report from 31 December 1984Sentinel Tribunal Report from 31 December 1984 02 Jan 1985, Wed Evening Sentinel (Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England) Newspapers.com

Of course we were all relieved, not least Tony Derricott, the Permanent Secretary, who must have felt especially exposed – as to a great extent did I – if the judgment had gone against us.

When we got back to the Students’ Union late morning/early afternoon, I remember Tony getting out cigars and offering them to us, which felt inappropriate to us student reps. We were relieved but not celebratory.

John and I had arranged to meet Annalisa de Mercur and Petra Wilson in London for New Years Eve, so we were also in a hurry to head down to London.

Rushed back to London with John to meet Annalisa and Petra…

…says the diary.

I remember far more than the diary tells. John might remember yet more or other details.

We had arranged to meet the girls at the Albert Memorial. No idea why there, other than it being a well-known landmark which all of us felt reasonably able to find easily and which we felt wouldn’t be a crowded place early evening on New Years Eve. It wasn’t.

John and I had a drink or two (or in John’s case possibly more than two) on the train down. Perhaps we can explain John’s, previously undisclosed, identification blooper as, at least partially, a result of the drink.

As John & I strode along Kensington Gore, John and I had a conversation along the following lines:

JOHN: (excitedly) I think that’s Annalisa in the distance, standing in front of the railings…

ME: (unconvinced)…I don’t think so…(even less convinced)…whatever it is, it’s not moving…

JOHN: (embarrassedly)…oh gawd, it’s not Annalisa. It’s a large pile of bin bags.

ME: Don’t worry, John, I won’t tell her.

Now let me be crystal clear on this point. Annalisa doesn’t and never did resemble a pile of bin bags. John’s excited outburst was no doubt enthusiasm for the anticipated evening with the girls. We were at a ridiculous distance to try to identify anyone – or to distinguish between objects and people.

Also in John’s defence, his optical delusion might have been born of eagerly looking forward to telling Annalisa and Petra that we had won our case. In those pre-mobile-phone days, there was no sensible way to get messages out ahead of meeting up – hence the pre-arrangement to meet at the Albert Memorial.

In fact, John & I had arrived at the Albert Memorial well ahead of the girls, leaving us quite literally in the cold for a good few minutes.

In the February 1985 issue of Concourse, in H Ackgrass’s final/parting newspaper column, I…or rather, better to say, H Ackgrass…wrote:

It’s all coming back to me. John will no doubt claim that he was simply finding imaginative ways to try and keep warm.

Soon enough Annalisa and Petra joined and the mood soon lightened once they learnt that the tribunal judgment had gone our way.

I am 99% sure that we ate at Melati in Great Windmill Street that evening, which was one of my/our favourite places at that time, although the diary is silent on that detail.

Melati, long since gone, this photo from 2014 by Sharjil “borrowed” from Yelp

I’m pretty sure we then ventured in the cold to get as close to Trafalgar Square as we could – which in those days I think meant so darn close that we were actually in the square. For sure we could hear Big Ben striking loud and clear. For sure we celebrated the New Year with the crowds. I vaguely remember hugging and kissing rather a lot of strangers on that occasion. In those days, such conduct was not micro-aggressive or inappropriate – it was simply doing what everyone else was doing in those circumstances.

Petra had arranged for the two of us to stay in a flat in Kennington – her brother, Christian had friends there – they were away and were happy for us to stay. Christian had sensibly advised Petra that we would want to be walking distance from wherever we were going to stay if we were going to do the “midnight in Trafalgar Square” thing. Kennington fitted that bill.

I’m not sure it was the Brandon Estate, but for sure it was down that way. This photo by Reading Tom from Reading, UK, CC BY 2.0

It was actually quite a long walk in the cold after such a long day. I also recall clearly a long cold night at that flat as well. Either the heating in the flat didn’t work or we couldn’t work out how to make it work…we found imaginative ways to try and keep warm. We just about managed to avoid hypothermia.

Tuesday 1 January 1985 – went home mid morning. Lunch. Lazy day at home.

Wednesday 2 January 1985 – went to town – met Caroline lunch. Went NH [Newman Harris] then shopping then met Pete Roberts for dinner.

Thursday 3 January 1985 – rose late. Went Junction [Dad’s shop] in afternoon after taping etc. Lazy evening in taping etc.

I’ll talk some more about the taping in a separate piece about music.

I often met Caroline Freeman (now Curtis) for lunch in those days. I’m intrigued that I visited Newman Harris that day. I sense that I had told someone (Stanley Bloom, presumably, by then) that if the tribunal went against us, I would resign from the Students’ Union and be looking for work in January. I’m just guessing that this visit was to tell them that we had won and to arrange a start date in September.

The only other possibility is that I was already, by then, helping dad keep his shop’s books, in order to help keep his costs down (goodness knows, dad wasn’t doing much business by that time). This visit might have been to deliver or collect something pertained to dad’s accounts, which might explain me visiting the shop the next day.

Dinner with the Pete Roberts will have been fun and interesting. Pete was my predecessor’s predecessor’s predecessor Education & Welfare Officer (in other words 1981/1982). He had become a friend and mentor before he left Keele, and we met up/kept in touch for several years after we both left. I think he was living in Parsons Green by this time or perhaps he was still around Pimlico.

Pete will no doubt have helped me to reorient my thinking about my role post Tribunal. I remember bouncing ideas off him and really valuing his experience and wisdom in matters E&W. He was also reliably good company with an interesting and often amusing take on most subjects.

I thought he’d gone quiet on Facebook of late and was saddened to learn that he died in December 2023.

This is a really pleasing photo of Pete from 2011. I’m sure Rosie won’t mind me “borrowing” it from his Facebook page.

My time in London was short yet again, as I shortly returned to Keele ahead of a Union Committee team bonding long weekend in the Somerset countryside. What could possibly go wrong with that sort of idea?

“Just Doing My Keele Students’ Union Sabbatical Job”: Two Gruelling Days At The Industrial Tribunal In Shrewsbury And Post Mortem, 18 to 20 December 1984

English Bridge Shrewsbury John Kenyon, Attribution, via Wikimedia Commons

We ended up spending four days at the Industrial Tribunal in Shrewsbury. The court had scheduled just these two days for our case, but the case ended up stretching to four.

This article is my account of the first two days.

The Tommy and Ralph saga had reached the dismissal stage in August

…then it went through the inappropriate but constitutionally necessary appeal to a Students’ union EGM in October…

…after which it was more or less inevitable that their NUPE representative, Derek Bamford, would drag us all through an application to the Industrial Tribunal for unfair dismissal.

Here are my diary notes for those first two days of the tribunal and the aftermath:

Tuesday, 18 December 1984 – To industrial tribunal Shrewsbury today – ate with UC [Union Committee] after and went home for early night.

Wednesday, 19 December 1984 – Gave evidence all day at tribunal – very gruelling. Very tired in evening – UC ate, drank and played charades together.

Thursday, 20 December 1984 – Got up quite late – EUC [emergency Union Committee] in morning – dossed around and drank in afternoon – cooked John and Kate meal – came down to London in evening.

I’m finding it hard to put into words just how mentally exhausting and emotionally draining I found the whole process. I have just a few specific recollections and a few impressionistic ones.

I remember sensing that this was an ordeal for absolutely all of us…with the possible exception of the legal leads – in our case the solicitor John Cheatham and in Tommy and Ralph’s case the NUPE rep Derek Bamford.

I remember Tony Derricott, the Students’ Union Permanent Secretary, telling us that one of the applicants was being unwell in the toilets, as a way of reminding/informing us that the event was an ordeal for everybody. He counselled us to be gentle with everybody involved.

I don’t remember much about that first day at the tribunal. It was, if I recall correctly, all taken up with the applicants setting out their case. I’m not sure whether both Tommy and Ralph gave evidence; I think Derek Bamford did most of the talking. The gist of their case was that we hadn’t really been through a proper process, we had merely gone through the motions of a proper process, having reached foregone conclusions prior to the process. Their case also placed much emphasis on the fact that the bar stock losses had not ceased on Tommy and Ralph’s departure.

Shrewsbury Panorama, Shropshire&TelfordTSB, CC BY 2.0

The second day of the tribunal was the truly gruelling day for me. My evidence in chief took less than an hour. Derek Bamford had clearly latched on to me, as the person who chaired the dismissal meeting and announced the dismissals, as “the person to go for”. He proceeded to cross-examine me for several hours – i.e. what turned out to be the whole of that second tribunal day.

It didn’t help that I had a nasty head cold by this stage of the proceedings, which I had tried to mask with cold remedies at the start of the day but which was increasingly unmaskable as the day went on.

Bamford’s barrage of questions in my direction went through every element of the case.

DeepAI has produced an artist’s impression of the exchanges. Derek Bamford was smaller and more wizened than that. I was (and still am) less well-groomed yet better looking than the character depicted.

Derek Bamford’s main line of attack on me was the notion that the decision had been made before that final hearing. He asked how it was possible for me to announce the dismissals with such detailed notes on the day. I had provided in my evidence bundles the notes I had prepared, ahead of the meeting, with bullet points to help prompt myself. I had prepared notes for both possibilities – that we decided to dismiss that day or that we decided not to dismiss that day. I explained that we, like the applicants, were nervous ahead of that meeting and that I felt the need to prepare with speech notes for either eventuality. Bamford poo-pooed that line of argument as a mere device on my part.

Then the following exchange, which I remember almost verbatim.

BAMFORD: OK. But then how come we received detailed letters confirming the dismissals on the Monday morning after the Friday afternoon meeting? They must have been posted on the Friday evening or Satursday morning.

ME: They were posted on the Saturday morning. The Constitution requires us to follow up dismissals in writing as soon as possible. I got up early on the Saturday to write and type the letters and catch the midday post, so that you would have the details in writing as soon as possible.

BAMFORD: (With a dramatic wide-armed expression of disbeief) Do you expect this Tribunal to believe that story.

ME: Yes I do. It is the truth. It is my sworn testamony.

BAMFORD: (As if catching a fatal flaw in a witnesses argument) Ah, but you didn’t swear, did you? You chose to affirm.

ME: You know what I mean.

CHAIRMAN: We all understand what Mr Harris means…

Actually, John Cheatham had advised me, ahead of the tribunal, to swear rather than affirm, when I told him that, as an atheist, I would choose to affirm. I had explained to John that I couldn’t in all conscience heed his advice, as swearing on a Bible would feel untruthful to me, which is not exactly a great start in giving faithful testimony. But I felt truly awful when the other side tried to make capital out of that decision.

I also recall Derek Bamford asking me a lot of questions about the EGM meeting, not least whether I was comfortable with that process. I remember stating clearly that I was not comfortable with the process but that we had to abide by the process as laid down in the Constitution, which gave the dismissed staff the right to appeal to that body. Derek Bamford implied that I and the committee had gamed that process to our advantage, which was really not true and not fair in the circumstances.

I remember I was thoroughly drained and feeling very low when we got back to Keele that evening. The diary says that we ate, drank and played charades that evening, so we must have done.

Back at the ranch…except there was no-one else around apart from Union Committee & the staff

We convened an emergency Union Committee meeting on the Thursday for two reasons, as I remember it.

First and foremost, to discuss the two choices the Tribunal had offered us for the resumption:

  • 28th and 31st December 1984 (the default dates agreed on the day, subject to confirmation of our availability);
  • two days in late January 1985, if we asked for the dates to be moved.

Although some of the non-sabbaticals had unmoveable commitments over “twixtmas”, those of us who were most bound up in the matter – not least me, Kate and John, were all willing to come back straight after Christmas and wanted the thing over with as soon as possible. The applicants had already made it clear that their preference was to return soonest. We all agreed it would be for the best to get the matter concluded before the end of 1984.

The other reason for the emergency Union Committee meeting, though, was to discuss what we would do if we were to lose the tribunal. I made it clear, as I had in the matter of the EGM Appeal, that I would resign if we lost but I didn’t feel that anyone else need do so. I’m not sure what else, if anything, came out of that emergency meeting.

By the time I left Keele on that Thursday, we were all over Page 5 of the Evening Sentinel.

Sentinel On SU Tribunal report on 19 December sittingSentinel On SU Tribunal report on 19 December sitting 20 Dec 1984, Thu Evening Sentinel (Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England) Newspapers.com

That Evening Sentinel report made us feel quite pessimistic about our chances at the time. On re-reading the report forty years later, I’m not sure why it made us feel so. Perhaps it was because Derek Bamford had briefed all the Union staff that we were certain to lose and that we had put all of their jobs at risk, so the above newspaper article read, to them, as confirmation that the case was going the way of the applicants. The staff certainly gave us the impression that the paper was suggesting that we were likely to lose.