Dear Social Workers Union

We, the undersigned, as members of the Social Workers Union, hereby lodge a formal complaint regarding the 2026 election for General Secretary. We do not believe the union’s current approach to the election process ensures fairness towards all candidates and proper communication and information sharing with members, for the following reasons:

• Communication with members about this election has been problematic and therefore has not reflected the vital importance of this election. For example, communication has been mainly through newsletters and email updates. However, a not insignificant number of members have raised that they have not been receiving these, with the union at a loss to explain why. Information has been posted on the union’s website, although this appears to have been reactive and in response to members raising issues and concerns with the union and on social media. Further, members would not necessarily know to look at the website unless prompted by a newsletter or mail out, which, as we have stated, have not been received in a consistent manner by members for reasons the union is unable to explain. Another significant issue is the union’s decision not to post anything about this election on its social media channels (surely one of the most advantageous ways of communicating with members and one which the union continues to use to post about other matters) due to ‘toxicity’. We are not aware of any social media ‘toxicity’ directed at the union about this election, although questions and concerns have, rightly, been raised on social media and so we are left to conclude that the decision ‘not to engage’ with social media in respect of this election may well be an attempt to pre-empt, preclude and foreclose any public challenge. The result is that members are feeding back to other members that have been sharing information about this election on social media that they would not have been aware that an election was taking place were it not for those members raising questions and sharing information about it on social media. This is clearly unacceptable and not befitting an election of this nature and import.

• Two weeks after the union said ballot papers were to be sent out, some members are reporting they have not yet received them. The union said these were due to be sent out on 31st March 2026. Some members had not received these 5 working days (taking into account the Easter holidays) after that date. Members contacted the union and were told that these should have been received 2-5 working days after sending and that these would be resent if they had not been received by end of Friday 10th April 2026. Further, the closing date for the election is 29th April 2026, which, even if ballot papers were received by all members within 2-5 working days, which they have not, does not leave sufficient time for members to familiarise themselves and engage with candidates’ campaigns, especially as the receipt of ballot papers may be the first time members became aware of the election, due to the communications issues highlighted above. The fact that some ballot papers may not arrive until 2-5 working days after the union has been notified by a member of non-receipt means some may not receive ballot papers until week commencing 20th April 2026, barely more than a week until the closing date for receipt of completed ballots. In addition, due to the communication issues highlighted above leading to the possibility that many members may not even know that there is an election taking place, there is a distinct possibility that members who have not received ballot papers may not even be aware that a) there is an election and b) that they need to request replacement ballot papers.

• The appointment of an ‘Election Endorsement Committee’ that has led to one candidate being ‘endorsed by SWU’ and the other not. Further, this ‘endorsement’ has been printed on ballot papers which carries significant risk of unduly influencing voters. We refer here to 4.1 of the Social Workers Union Bye-Laws which relates to the appointment of an ‘election advisory committee’, which allows for the assessment of candidates’ skills and suitability to stand but does not permit the union to ‘endorse’ any candidate. We believe there is a substantive difference between ‘skills and suitability’ and ‘endorsement’ and that, beyond ascertaining that a candidate is eligible to stand, it is not within the executive of the union’s remit to collectively endorse any candidate for election to General Secretary of the union as it would constitute a potential conflict of interest.

• The holding of a ‘live hustings’ which, due to in fact being a pre-recorded Q & A, one candidate declined to participate in. This resulted in one candidate benefitting from what the union subsequently acknowledged was not a live hustings but a recorded Q & A. Despite this, the union has refused to host an actual live hustings or any other event that would give the candidates a forum to engage with members’ questions on a fair and equal basis.

Given these serious concerns about the apparent lack of effective governance and appropriate regard for democratic process and member participation, we do not believe the union is currently running a free and fair election.

Signed,