Dear Colleague

1. At a meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee (SFC) in June, a programme to implement Resolution 30 was set out. This took account of initial legal advice the union had received which asserted that:

"the Union and its members are fully entitled to exercise their right to freedom of expression, discussion and debate by considering the pros and cons of the proposed boycott, and, if so minded, to pass and publish resolutions criticising the policies of the Israeli government and its supporters and expressing support for the rights of Palestinians, withdrawal by Israel from the occupied territories, and so on."

2. However, the advice went on to say that “it would …be beyond the Union’s powers and unlawful for the union to call for or to implement a boycott by the Union and its members of any kind of Israeli universities and other academic institutions.”

3. UCU Circulars 31 and 34 were subsequently issued to provide guidance to branches and members. They proposed a number of different ways of seeking members’ views on Resolution 30 and the call to boycott which the union was charged with circulating for information and discussion. These included branch votes and an individual email contact for members to give their individual views.

4. The UCU Trustees, with the agreement of SFC, took their own legal advice which concluded that because the call to boycott is unlawful, the testing of support for it is unlawful too.

5. This distinction between discussing the pros and cons of a proposed boycott and testing support for a call to boycott was not made in the original advice sought by the union so further legal advice on the specific question raised by the Trustees was sought from the original source of advice.

6. The subsequent advice on this point was very clear and stated that the union needed to tell branches and members that:

“It would be beyond the Union's powers and unlawful for the Union, directly or indirectly to call for or to implement a boycott by the Union and its members of any kind of Israeli universities and other academic institutions; and that the use of Union funds directly or indirectly to further such a boycott would also be unlawful."

7. The SFC unanimously accepted this advice.

8. SFC then turned its attention to the question of the forthcoming regional debates. Our advice was that there was no legal impediment to them continuing. However, the context for the meetings had clearly been changed radically by the legal advice.

9. The audio transcript of Congress 2008 showed that Resolution 30 had been originally moved on the basis that delegates should “support this motion which is for a debate on a boycott; it is not a motion for a boycott."

10. Yet while a debate on the pros and cons of boycott continues to be legally possible our advice makes clear that we are unable either to test members’ opinion as part of that debate or indeed to implement a decision to boycott even if one could be made.

11. In those circumstances SFC noted that our invitees from both Israel and Palestine had accepted their invitations on the basis that they were coming over to primarily discuss and participate in “a debate on a boycott.”

12. Given this substantial change in context and purpose for the debates provided by our legal advice, SFC unanimously agreed that the proposed tour could not go ahead on the planned basis. Further work will now be planned to implement the ‘non-boycott’ parts of Resolution 30 such as to “actively encourage and support branches to create direct links with Palestinian educational institutions and to help set up nationally sponsored programmes for teacher exchanges, sabbatical placements, and research.”

13. SFC also discussed the implications of the current position arising from the issue raised by the Trustees and instructed the general secretary to contact the TUC to discuss ways to ensure that the union would be able to continue its important political and international solidarity work.

14. The decisions of SFC in full are as follows:

· SFC notes the implementation of SFC/8 so far, in line with the legal advice current at the time.

· SFC notes the issue raised by the Trustees and also the subsequent advice obtained on the union’s behalf. The General Secretary is therefore asked to write to branches and members as recommended stating clearly that:

· A boycott call would be unlawful; that any debates which proactively seek members’ opinion on it may be unlawful too; [and] that opinion should not therefore be tested in union meetings on the call to boycott.

· SFC further asks the General Secretary to write to our invitees to explain that the call to boycott is unlawful and that we cannot debate and vote on it according to our legal advice. In view of these changed circumstances the proposed regional tour cannot go ahead on the planned basis.

· SFC recognises the importance of allowing the issues of Israel/Palestine to be put before members in order to focus our union’s efforts on investigating ways of providing solidarity with Palestinian educators and contributing positively to a just peace. Alternative arrangements will be made to enact the non-boycott aspects of motion 30 before Congress 2008.

· SFC instructs the General Secretary to talk urgently with the TUC with a view to ensuring that trade unions can engage in political and international solidarity work.

15. It is worth repeating that this decision does not mean that the union cannot debate the situation in Israel/Palestine. It does however mean that the union cannot test members’ opinions on the specific issue of a call to boycott Israeli academic institutions.

16. Branches who intend to have meetings on any matters relating to the pros and cons of a call to boycott Israeli academic institutions should ensure that they do not take a vote or seek to test members’ opinions in another way on the matter.

link