The IWGB and UCL UCU have written jointly to Sodexo and UCL in protest at their plans to introduce biometric testing for cleaners at UCL – full letter below!

We are writing in response to the announcement by Sodexo that the company plans to introduce a Time Management System using biometric technology for cleaners employed on the UCL contract.

Both we and the affected workers (many of whom are members of the IWGB union) believe that this proposal is ill-considered, discriminatory and likely to be in breach of the Biometrics Institute’s2017 Biometric Privacy Guidelines, as well as the UK’s 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) with regard to the principle of proportionality.

These workers are already the most heavily scrutinised in the University. They have passes in order to clock in and out, as well as a signing in book, and their supervisors control their entry to and exit from work. The introduction of additional monitoring systems is out of step with contemporary practice in relation to cleaning jobs in buildings of this type, and therefore excessive.

We are therefore calling on Sodexo and UCL to halt the implementation process immediately, and to provide answers to the following questions:

1)      Why is this system being introduced for cleaners, but not for any other group of staff working at UCL?

2)      Why is it being introduced at UCL and not at other comparable institutions (indeed, plans for a similar system at Birkbeck were recently abandoned)?

3)      Given the disproportionate number of BAME staff working on the cleaning contract, has an Equality Impact Assessment been conducted to ensure that these plans are not in breach of the Equalities Act 2010?

4)      Can Sodexo please provide references to their own policies to show that they have addressed the following guidelines as laid out in the 2017 Biometric Privacy Guidelines?

i)        Principle 1 Respect for Individuals/Data Subject Privacy

ii)       Principle 2 Proportionality

iii)     Principle 3 Informed Consent

iv)     Principle 4 Truth and Accuracy in Business Operations

v)      Principle 5 Protection of Biometric Data Collected

vi)     Principle 6 Complaints and Enquiries

vii)   Principle 7 Purpose

viii)  Principle 8 Non Discrimination

ix)     Principle 9 Accountability

x)      Principle 10 Sharing of Biometric Data

xi)     Principle 11 Provision of Advance Warnings of Surveillance

xii)   Principle 12 Transmission of Biometric Data Beyond National Boundaries

xiii)  Principle 13 Employee Biometric Data Must be Protected

xiv) Principle 14 Limit the Extent of Personal Data Exchanged and Retained

xv)   Principle 15 Maintain a Strong Privacy Environment

xvi) Principle 16 Maintain Privacy Logs

5)      If the Biometrics Institute Privacy Guidelines have not been incorporated into the policy, could  Sodexo please send a copy of the relevant Privacy Impact Assessment that has been carried out in relation to the proposed implementation?

The IWGB and UCU are extremely concerned both at these plans and at the way they are being implemented with little consultation or consideration for the privacy rights of our colleagues. If this is not halted then we will be passing the matter to our respective legal departments and considering a representation to the Information Commissioner., especially in relation to any areas of GDPR-related non-compliance.

A failure on the part of Sodexo to address our concerns within 10 working days will leave us no option but to alert all UCL staff and students to this inconsiderate and disproportionate approach to the privacy rights of the most vulnerable and low-paid of our colleagues on campus.

Yours sincerely

Maritza Castillo Calle (President UoL IWGB)
Danny Millum (Branch Secretary UoL IWGB)
Sean Wallis (President UCL UCU)
Saladin Meckled-Garcia (Vice President UCL UCU)
Tony Brown (Branch Secretary UCL UCU)

Despite the IWGB being by far the largest and most active union among security guards at UCL, the security contractor Axis has chosen to thwart our formal bid for recognition by choosing to voluntarily recognise Unison instead.

As Axis are well aware, the IWGB is the largest union among the UCL security bargaining unit, and has consistently flagged up issues on behalf of those members since the company took over the contract.

Indeed, UCL’s Security Manager admitted when the IWGB met him to discuss the innumerable problems with officers’ holidays and pay under Axis that the IWGB had raised around 30 cases, while Unison had raised just one.

It is thus quite clear that Axis have entered into this voluntary recognition agreement simply to block the IWGB’s application. Had they genuinely wished to engage with their workforce, they would of course have chosen to deal with the union actually representing those workers.

It is an indication of the contempt in which Axis holds its employees that it believes that they will not see through this transparent attempt too substitute a management-approved union for the real thing.

The IWGB in reply has written to Axis stating that it is not up to decide what union workers belong to and choose to represent them, and that we will continue to represent members, raise issues with Axis management, and resolve them if necessary via the appropriate legal steps. In addition, we will continue to publicise Axis’s failings, both to the UCL community and to the wider world.

We added that the IWGB has never been recognised in any University workplace – and this has not stopped us from waging and winning multiple campaigns for the improvement of workers’ rights – most recently at Senate House where the first tranche of our members are about to be brought in-house. Oh – and check out Goldsmith’s security guards as well (https://hyperallergic.com/484990/protesters-demand-londons-goldsmiths-university-stops-outsourcing-workforce/).

Hasta la victoria siempre!

Happy New Year! Starting 2019 as we mean to go on, the IWGB has just banged in a recognition request to Axis, the outsourced security company at UCL. Axis currently don’t recognise any unions, but with rapid growth in membership among security officers at UCL the IWGB has now been able to submit a formal request for voluntary recognition.

Axis have 10 days to respond – they can either agree to the request or refuse it. Should they take the latter option then the IWGB would then be able to apply for statutory recognition.

Either way, we are confident that this will be our branch’s first ever recognition agreement, which will further strengthen our capacity to support our members as they fight for better terms and conditions at UCL.

For those interested in the process more details are here (https://www.gov.uk/trade-union-recognition-employers), and the letter itself follows:

Following our discussion at the September branch meeting on Brexit, the motion was passed by the IWGB Executive Committee – see below for a letter from our general secretary:

Email sent Wednesday 3 October to University of London Vice-Chancellor Peter Kopelman

Dear Professor Kopelman,

I am writing in a mixture of anger and astonishment to bring to your attention a second successive case of blatantly discriminatory behaviour on behalf of a senior Cordant Security manager and the failure of the University to deal with this.

You will be aware that in July the IWGB brought to your attention the case a Cordant manager posting openly racist and far-right material on Facebook (https://iwgb-universityoflondon.org/2018/07/10/university-of-londons-outsourcing-manager-under-fire-for-racist-facebook-posts/).

Following our revelations, they were removed from the University of London contract. However, rather than thank the IWGB for their actions, Our branch secretary was rebuked by the head of FM Services, Ghaz Alwani-Starr, for having openly revealed these details, and told that firstly this would better have been dealt with by having been brought to the University’s attention discretely, and secondly that this was not a failure of governance or the contractor, but simply one bad apple.

On both counts this has now shown to be untrue.

A current Cordant security manager was the subject of a grievance by his own staff in July. This covered numerous aspects of his behaviour, but perhaps most notably his racism, sexism and blatant homophobia.

In the grievance notes, one of the receptionists recounts how ‘he always has a comment about women who walk past, not to them, but about them to us, like “she’s so attractive, the things I would do to her”. There was one lady who worked in Birkbeck Employability called XXXX who he was always commenting about. She told me she felt very uncomfortable around him as he was just a perv’.

The same witness goes on to state: ‘a new potential receptionist was training called Fabio. And after he’d finished [the manager] said that he didn’t want that “Batty man” working here’.

Allegations of this seriousness ON THEIR OWN should have warranted at the very least suspension while a full investigation took place.

However, they were not isolated allegations. At the same time a complaint had been submitted independently by the Birkbeck employee in question. In it, she states how she had been continually harassed by the manager. Some of the most shocking passages are as follows:

‘Whilst asking XXXX about the classes and services the swimming pool have on offer, he briefly mentioned that on Saturdays you get the “Batty Boys”. I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that so I asked him to elaborate further, he then went on to explain that naked gay men are here all day flaunting their bits. I found this comment completely shocking … Furthermore, I went on to say that if he was homosexual would he appreciate comments as such being made? In response to this he replied “Bitch – Do I look gay to you” – there was no need for him to insult me in this way by calling me a “bitch” at which point I was very upset and completely appalled by his attitude.

He also made remarks and inappropriate comments about the clothing that I wear like my “backside is banging in that – I would deal with that all day long!’.

This complaint was emailed to Ghaz Alwani-Starr of the University of London on 12 July 2018. The only response that the complainant received was that this would be passed onto Cordant. However, Cordant made no effort to contact her, and she received no further response whatsoever regarding this until she prompted the University herself two months later. Their reply could not have been more dismissive:

‘Thank you for your email and apologies you have not received a reply to your initial email. Cordant have investigated and I understand that they spoke to you as part of the investigation. They have included the investigation and the matter will remain on file’.

The fact was that Cordant had not spoken to her. Nor had they made any effort to investigate, or they might have spoken to a witness to the incident above, who stated to us:

‘I believe there has been a few sexual comments in regards to homosexuality which may have offended a number of people at student central. I have only witnessed or heard of one comment made about this as I was within the vicinity at the time where a staff member looked shocked by this comment made. I am not sure about the relation they both have however making a comment of such nature as well as calling a staff member a bitch did not go down very well in my opinion’.

The grievance taken out by the receptionists took two months to report (only doing so after half a dozen prompts from the receptionists and our branch secretary), and astoundingly the outcome makes NO MENTION of his sexism and homophobia – instead merely stating that ‘there appears to be a breakdown in the relationship’ and offering mediation.

It is clear from the fact that no other witness statements were included in the grievance outcome that the whole process was a farce. Had Cordant been interested in getting to the truth of the matter they might, for example, have interviewed a trainee lifeguard, who stated to us:

The individual by the name of XXXX was the person that showed me around but I found him to be quite stand off and I felt that his attitude towards me could of been because of my sexuality. When XXXX contacted me and made me aware he had made that comment “I didn’t want to hire that batty boy anyway” confirmed my assumptions were correct. I feel disgusted that a person could say such words about myself and I am also questioning the university as a whole. How can you allow an individual that has a personal issue against gays and homosexuals to work in a diverse establishment.

This individual is clearly unfit to work at the University of London, an institution that confirmed only last week that its contractor are bound by its much-heralded ‘Diversity and Inclusion Strategy’, which states:

The University shall not discriminate against any person on the grounds of race, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age, religion, social background or political belief.

Of course, there are also serious legal issues which you need to consider, such as the University’s Public Sector Equality Duty pursuant to the Equality Act 2010.

Furthermore, it can no longer be passed off as a coincidence that the University’s outsourced companies are employing and protecting managers exhibiting discriminatory behaviour of this sort – it is clear that outsourcing produces a failure of oversight and accountability which threatens the very diversity and inclusivity the University claims to hold so dear.

Indeed, it makes a mockery of the claims made by Dr Alwani-Starr in her latest FM Services Review email this week, in which she states:

‘In recognition that there have been issues raised with me in relation to how our contractors are applying their policies locally, I am encouraged that Cordant have over the summer repeated key training for managers and supervisors to ensure proper adherence to their own policies. We are also taking action ourselves and putting in place a rigorous monitoring system to ensure that all terms of the contracts are being adhered to’.

This rigid monitoring system clearly does not extend to excluding or disciplining managers who refer to staff and colleagues as ‘batty boys’ and ‘bitches’.

When our general secretary raised the issue of the previous Cordant manager he ended as follows:

Now your usual tactic is to place the blame for all things outsourcing on the contractors themselves. Not this time. You and only you chose Cordant for your contracts. No one else made that decision except the University of London. This is your responsibility. I want to know what you’re going to do about it, and I want to know now.

This situation is even more serious, given the University’s role in covering it up and the fact that the staff who were brave enough to raise this issue are still at risk, as are all potential visitors and occupants of Student Central.

Can you confirm you will be taking immediate action?

Please feel free to get in touch if you need any further information.

Best wishes

Emiliano Mellino
Organiser/Press officer
IWGB