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,
Dear all
Despite SWU stating that it was not going to announce the results until any complaints had been concluded, it did so on 11/05/26 without responding to the response I sent on 29/04/26 to the returning officer, Civica, at their request, in which I raised further concerns and questions prompted by SWU's initial response (see update on 29/04/26).
After prompting the returning officer on 11/05/26, following SWU's announcement of the results and accompanying election statement, I received a response on 12/05/26 (see below). As you can see this response falls far short of addressing the questions and concerns raised in my follow up response of 29/04/26.
SWU has never directly responded to the complaint or subsequent matters raised as part of that process, directing the complaint and subsequent matters raised via Civica, the election services firm it contracted to oversee the ballot, which, as stated above, did not respond until after the result was announced and as it's role in the matter was presumably coming to an end. Further, it contravened its own previous undertaking to conclude any complaints before announcing the election result, as it had not responded to the specific concerns and questions raised on 29/04/26, yet effectively misled its members by publishing an election statement that claimed to address those further, specific concerns and questions raised on 29/04/26, at the request of Civica, which include:
a question as to whether the amendment to bye-law 2.6 in September 2025 that admits for the first time any mention of an endorsement process for election of the GS was approved by members at the 2025 AGM (notably, the election statement makes no mention of bye-law 2.6 despite this being cited in SWU's initial response as justification for the endorsement process)
a request for examples of such 'endorsement' processes adopted by other unions in respect of GS elections (no such examples are readily found in the public domain)
a point that one candidate was unfairly advantaged on the ballot paper in a way that appears to contravene the '[e]qual treatment of election contestants before the law and by the authorities [as] one of the fundamental principles of a democratic electoral process.'(International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2025, p1) which further states, 'This principle also has practical implications for ballot design, in particular with respect to the order of contestants on the ballot and the way they are presented.' (This principle aligns with the Trade Unions Executive Election Guidance (2010) which states ‘every elector must be allowed to vote without interference or constraint… on the part of the Union’.)
a point regarding notable differences in the presentation and framing of the 'hustings' event by SWU during the election period. First, by using wording is suggestive of a live hustings event at which members would hear candidates respond to previously submitted questions in real-time. Then, by subsequently using language that shifted noticeably, with ‘live recording’ being used, rather than ‘online husting’. This shift in language was further exemplified in a news article, in which the current General Secretary stated, "If I had a magic wand, I might go back in time and use a different terminology than hustings."
a request for details of the 'legal advice/guidance' taken by SWU in relation to the election: the firm used, the relevant expenditure on legal advice and guidance in relation to this election and the questions that were asked of the legal advisor, which is pertinent to SWU’s statement that ‘available resources’ were a factor in its decision not to hold a live hustings event.
In summary, SWU's statement does not take into account or address these further questions and concerns raised as part of a complaint process that was not concluded at the time of the publication of election results. Therefore, I can only conclude that it has no intention of responding to these specific questions and concerns, which is counterproductive to allaying any concerns about transparency and accountability that members and other interested parties may have about the only specialised union for social workers in the UK.
If anyone wishes to discuss these or any other matters further, I am readily contactable.
Best wishes,
Christian
Civica's response of 12/05/26:
Dear Christian,
As you are aware Civica Election Services are appointed as Returning Officer for the SWU Election of General Secretary 2026.
Part of our responsibilities as Returning Officer is to receive complaints and to investigate matters relating to the election.
You have raised a number of issues with the returning Officer.
The union were requested to provide responses to each matter highlighted by you. In arriving at our determination we have considered all the information available, including the provisions of the union rulebook and any electoral regulation.
Ballot paper delivery
In relation to your comments concerning the ballot period and delivery, the 29 days between despatch of the voting packs and the deadline for receipt of votes is broadly in line with the voting period for a trade union postal ballot.
The length of the ballot period is also in place to mitigate against any potential postal delays. The union have stated that mechanisms were in place for any members who had not received their voting pack to request a replacement ballot. Where these were requested, the Union instructed CES, as independent scrutineer, and arrangements were made to issue that member a replacement.
Endorsement Process
We understand that the endorsement process has been in place for over a decade. It was originally introduced in December 2015 for the 2016 General Secretary election, when the Executive Committee, under its general duty to manage the Union as set out in Rule 6.4, formally adopted the policy. We are advised that this was done to ensure that anyone elected to the role of General Secretary has the necessary skills and capability to fulfil its requirements.
We understand that it was first applied in the 2016 election, where both candidates were successfully endorsed. In 2021, it was not required in practice as only one candidate stood.
We further understand that the union’s Endorsement Committee undertook an assessment of candidates through a structured process comprising a written personal statement and a skills test. The endorsement process provides for an Endorsement Committee which was approved by the SWU Executive Committee and was made up of four Executive members. The process itself was established by the SWU National Executive to assess candidates against objective criteria set out in the job description and person specification (appendices 1 and 2), including a skills test as part of the overall assessment. We are advised that the endorsement process was included within the documentation provided to candidates following the calling notice for General Secretary nominations, which was published in the SWU newsletter and PSW from December 2025 and made available on the website.
Byelaw 2.6 of the SWU Rules and ByLaws published in September 2025 states: “Voting in all cases shall be by marking of a voting paper by postal ballot or online secure voting method by appropriate electronic means. GS candidates must provide an election statement which will either be endorsed or not endorsed by the SWU Executive Committee as per the terms of the SWU Nomination Committee.” We are advised that all candidates were informed from the outset that completion of both elements—the personal statement and the skills test—was required to be considered for endorsement.
The candidate guidance states
Election materials sent to members will state one of the following for each candidate:
• Nomination and skillstest considered by endorsement committee and endorsed by SWU
• Nomination and skillstest considered by endorsement committee but not endorsed by SWU
• Candidate chose not to participate in endorsement process
Considering all the evidence available to the Returning Officer, it is determined that it was reasonable for the union to include the wording complained of in the voting paper.
Many thanks,
CES
SWU Returning Officer
Hello all
A brief update:
The letter was forwarded to SWU on 14/04/26 and a reply received in 15/04/26 stating, “ Any concerns or complaints related to the election process need to be raised directly with the appointed Independent Returning Officer, Civica, in the first instance.”
I forwarded the complaint to Civica on 15/04/26 with the message, “ I have been informed by SWU that I should direct this complaint to Civica in the first instance. It is unclear to me why this should be the case when the bulk of the complaint pertains to issues which would appear to any reasonable person to be within the remit and power of SWU to resolve. Nevertheless, I am forwarding to Civica while simultaneously communicating this position to SWU. A regrettable (and probably avoidable) consequence of this is delayed response/resolution.”
Civica acknowledged receipt on 16/04/26.
And that’s it for now. I will prompt Civica and provide a further update next week.
In the meantime, any SWU members still without a ballot paper should inform SWU as soon as possible.
Best wishes and thank you for supporting the letter,
Christian
Dear all
On 24/04/26 I received a response from Civica inviting me to respond to SWU's comments in relation to the formal complaint I lodged with SWU, then - at SWU's request - with Civica, the election services firm contracted by SWU. My (quite lengthy and detailed) response is below (apologies for missing hyperlinks and attachments as there is no way of including them in this form):
Dear [relevant person at Civica]
Thank you for providing SWU’s initial response to my complaint. I address each of the key areas below.
Communication
While the Union states that only two members have notified it of non-delivery of email correspondence and that the matter is resolved, it remains the case that I and other members who have contacted me have not received key emails from SWU. For example, I was informed by the SWU Operations Manager that the April newsletter was showing as ‘delivered’ to my email address, yet it never arrived, including to junk/spam, necessitating the SWU Operations Manager personally forwarding the newsletter to me. While I recognise that SWU cannot act unless it is alerted to an issue by members, given this has happened to me and other members I know, regardless of whether they have reported it or not, and set against the fact that actual delivery rates sit at 84-85%, I question SWU’s position that it is confident that members are receiving email communications in sufficiently consistent manner. Again, I must underscore the importance of such consistency at election time. By the Union’s own admission, up 15-16% of emails are not getting to members, which is a significant number and certainly enough to have a substantive impact on the result of an election, especially in light of the preferential status afforded to one candidate on the ballot papers (see below).
I acknowledge the point regarding the updating of the website and again note that key ‘further information’ was only provided there following members raising questions and concerns on social media, suggesting a reactive, rather than proactive, approach. It also suggests that SWU’s assertion that it decided not to engage with social media during the election is in fact misleading because the Union clearly was monitoring social media and responding to it, albeit in an asymmetrical and power-imbalanced way. This is further underscored by the General Secretary’s statement in this interview that commentary about the election on social media has not ‘helped’, which is at odds with the experience of those members who only heard about the election through members’ and candidates’ social media channels.
SWU states, ‘The decision not to engage via social media on this occasion was taken to ensure communication remained controlled, accurate and constructive, and directed through official member channels.’ However, it is clear from what SWU has said that communication about the election has not been ‘controlled, accurate and constructive’ because members have had to share information about this election themselves, through their own channels. Further, to state that the decision to not use social media to communicate about the election was to ensure communication was ‘directed through official member channels’ is clearly at odds with the decision not to use key channels available to SWU – social media – to communicate with members about the election. It is easy to disable replies on posts on social media, which would have allowed SWU to publicise the election through those channels without inviting open responses. Whatever the Union’s motives in this communication strategy, the effect has been to fail to meet the Union’s responsibility to publicise the GS election to its members as widely, and effectively, as is possible.
The SWU response further states, without providing any corroborating detail, ‘We have received numerous screenshots from members highlighting inappropriate and inaccurate content circulating on social media. In our view, it was therefore appropriate not to engage in that forum.’ First, there is an apparent inconsistency in SWU’s expressed rationale for not engaging in social media as it has previously been suggested that this decision was proactive, hence the dearth of content about the election on SWU’s social media channels. However, the above statement suggests that this was a reactive decision in response to ‘inappropriate and inaccurate content circulating on social media.’ Further, this is an example of the asymmetrical and power-imbalanced communication characteristic of SWU during the election period, as it casts unsubstantiated aspersions on Union members who have raised questions, concerns and, legitimate criticisms of the SWU governance. This was further reflected in the current General Secretary’s recent interview, during the election period, with the British Association of Social Work’s (BASW) magazine, Professional Social Work. In the interview Mr McGowan sought to rebuff criticisms of SWU’s conduct during the election process without ever acknowledging what these criticisms exactly were, and therefore without affording any possibility of direct reply.
Ballot packs
SWU states, ‘Clear guidance has also been provided to advise members on what to do if they have not received a ballot paper.’ I note that a cover letter from the General Secretary sent out with the ballot packs stated that replacement ballots should be requested from Civica. However, I and other members were informed on contacting SWU when our ballot papers did not arrive that the correct channel was to contact SWU who would then contact Civica on our behalf. Equally, as you will be aware, when members have contacted Civica directly, they have been advised to contact SWU. This is by no means ‘clear guidance’. I further note that a key example of SWU communicating guidance about requesting replacement papers was in the form of the aforementioned covering letter sent out with ballot packs, which is obviously of no use in the event of a delayed or non-arrival of ballot paper. Further, SWU states, ‘On 13th April, email guidance was issued to all members explaining how to request a duplicate ballot paper to be sent and returned via first-class post.’ I did not receive this email to all members, and I am aware of others who also did not.
SWU states, ‘Postal delays, particularly during peak or holiday periods, are outside the Union’s direct control.’ I would therefore contend that SWU could have reasonably foreseen delays caused by Easter, which occurred just days after the mailing of ballots to members. SWU’s statement that ‘[i]t is unclear why the deadline of 30th April is considered unacceptable in this context’ is therefore puzzling because, if the Union is acknowledging such delays could have had a bearing on the delivery of ballots in a timely fashion, then it may have considered the wisdom of conducting an important election at a time when there was a distinct chance of it being substantively impacted by a significant holiday period.
SWU also states ‘there are established mechanisms to ensure all members are still able to participate in the vote.’ I would like to ask for clarity on this claim as it would appear to suggest that members can still vote if they have not received a ballot paper, yet the Union has not said what these mechanisms are or when and how they can be accessed.
‘Endorsement’ process
I reiterate that SWU has lately adopted an unusual, irregular and undemocratic ‘endorsement’ process.
SWU quotes a section of bye-law 2.6 which is in fact an addition to that bye-law, adopted in September 2025 without, it appears, proper consultation with members. I will explain why.
The AGM 2025 was held on 26/09/25. The official notice of that AGM 2025 was emailed to members on 18/09/25, one week before the closing date for registration, and 8 days before the meeting itself. The notice lists ‘to approve rule changes (if applicable)’ as an agenda item and provides a link to documents including the amended rules. Given this extremely important item regarding the future governance of SWU - on which its executive is relying to justify its conduct in this election - it is concerning that members were given very little notice to scrutinise these changes and then attend the AGM to participate in the discussion around whether they should be approved or not. It is also unclear what ‘if applicable’ means in this context, although it suggests that member approval was in some way contingent on some unspecified factor.
An email reminder about the AGM was sent on 23/09/25, containing the same information.
Following that, the October 2025 SWU newsletter leads with item, ‘General Secretary reports from the Annual General Meeting’, which details the passage of motions at the AGM but makes no mention of approval of the amended rules. The separate online report for AGM 2025 leads with the agenda for the AGM, which lists ‘To approve Rule Changes’ (without the ‘if applicable’) as an item. These amendments, which have had a direct bearing on the way this election has been conducted, have made their way into the latest iteration of the Union’s rules and bye-laws, yet there are significant questions over whether they were subject to proper member scrutiny. I therefore request sight of the minutes of the 2025 AGM as evidence that the proposed rule changes were voted for by members in attendance.
Another factor that has raised concerns about transparency in relation to the amended rules and bye-laws is that, unlike previous iterations, these latest rules are not available on the UK Government web page that hosts the Union’s rules. Notably, bye-law 2.6 in the 2024 rules state:
Voting in all cases shall be by marking of a voting paper by postal ballot or online secure voting method by appropriate electronic means.
In comparison, the 2025 version amends this to:
Voting in all cases shall be by marking of a voting paper by postal ballot or online secure voting method by appropriate electronic means. GS candidates must provide an election statement which will either be endorsed or not endorsed by the SWU Executive Committee as per the terms of the SWU Nomination Committee.
I note also that both versions contain the identical bye-law 4, relating to the appointment of an ‘Election Advisory Committee’, but there is no mention of a ‘SWU Nomination Committee’ or its terms in any version of the rules. If ‘SWU Nomination Committee’ is in fact a reference to the ‘Election and Advisory Committee’ then this is surely adding to the confusion and concerns members are raising regarding a lack of clarity and transparency from the Union in respect of this election. If it is the case that ‘SWU Nomination Committee’ does mean ‘Election and Advisory Committee’ this raises the question of whether ‘terms’ in that context actually means the provisions set out in the sub-sections of bye-law 4, which make no mention of an ‘endorsement’ process but which do contain the following:
4.2. The election advisory committee may adopt such policies or processes as they consider fit from time to time to assess the skills and experience of candidates for election to the Executive Committee and to encourage nominations of Members possessing the relevant skills and experience, provided that no Member eligible for election may be unreasonably excluded from standing for election.
The committee’s self-appointed power to ‘adopt such policies or processes as they consider fit from time to time to assess the skills and experience of candidates for election to the Executive Committee’ would appear not only to be very broad and encompassing but also opaque to scrutiny and, if these are the terms by which SWU has adopted the ‘endorsement’ process, this further underscores concerns about transparency and accountability in relation to this election.
I would be grateful to be provided with any examples of similar rules and ‘endorsement’ processes in other unions as, in this example, there has been a direct and substantive impact on the presentation of each candidate on the ballot papers sent to members, namely that one is clearly marked as ‘endorsed by SWU’ and the other as ‘not endorsed by SWU’. I refer here to a technical paper from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in which it states the following:
Equal treatment of election contestants before the law and by the authorities is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic electoral process. This principle also has practical implications for ballot design, in particular with respect to the order of contestants on the ballot and the way they are presented.
…
Ballot presentation may give voters cues about a certain party or candidate, intentionally or inadvertently. No advantage should be given to any candidates or parties through their presentation on the ballot—for example, by using a different typeface or font size. In addition, special care should be taken where ballots feature candidate photos, party logos or symbols, or other information to ensure that this information is presented equally. Where EMBs themselves choose symbols for election contestants in order to make ballots more accessible for less literate voters, such symbols should be equally neutral.
(International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2025, pp9-10)
This guidance is from an intergovernmental organisation dedicated exclusively to supporting and strengthening democratic institutions, processes and norms worldwide, that has 35 member countries, the purpose of which is ‘to help election practitioners achieve a transparent, secure and cost-effective election process’ (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2025, p1) and accords with the Trade Unions Executive Election Guidance (2010) which states ‘every elector must be allowed to vote without interference or constraint… on the part of the Union’. The ballot papers for the election in question have not met these important criteria, because advantage was given to one candidate through their presentation on the ballot by clearly marking them as ‘endorsed by SWU’, while the other was marked as ‘not endorsed by SWU’, which was a direct consequence of the formation of an ‘Election Endorsement Committee’, for which I can find no precedent, either within SWU or in comparable unions.
The ‘hustings’
SWU states ‘the format adopted was designed to ensure accessibility, consistency and fairness for all members, particularly given that previous live events had not been well attended.’ It is unclear how the format adopted enabled SWU to better achieve these goals than an actual live ‘online hustings’, which is what the event was advertised as, for example, in the March 2026 SWU newsletter, which stated, ‘These candidates will be given the opportunity to answer live questions at an online husting later this month. This event will be recorded and made available to watch as a video on the SWU YouTube channel… SWU members are invited to contribute to the hustings by sending in anonymised questions for the General Secretary candidates. This will be an opportunity to hear each candidate’s platform and to learn more about them before casting your vote.’
The Union subsequently provided ‘further information’ on the election on its website, stating, ‘As advertised to all members, SWU is recording a husting this week. This is a live recording which means that the questions will be answered in real time and the uncut video recording of this live stream will be published. Questions which have been pre-submitted by members will be presented by an independent host BASW Communications & External Relations Officer Jonny Adamson.’
There are notable differences in the presentation and framing of this event between these two sources. In the first, there is nothing to suggest that members would not be able to attend a real-time live event. Indeed, the wording is suggestive of a such a live event at which members would hear candidates respond to previously submitted questions in real-time. In the second source, the language has shifted noticeably, with ‘live recording’ being used, rather than ‘online husting’. This shift in language is further exemplified in this article, in which the current General Secretary states, "If I had a magic wand, I might go back in time and use a different terminology than hustings."
Another notable difference is the inclusion of information about ‘independent host BASW Communications & External Relations Officer Jonny Adamson’. While meaning no disrespect to Mr Adamson, I would question whether an employee of an organisation closely affiliated and financially entwined with SWU, and who is therefore potentially personally known by the General Secretary and candidates, can be said to be sufficiently independent.
This raises the following concerns:
That plans for the event appeared to change between the key communications about it, or at least there was a lack of clarity from the outset that gave the appearance of change.
That the event in question, central to a fair election process, may have been misrepresented by the Union as an independently-hosted live hustings event when it was not.
If no actual hustings took place, then the Union, in refusing calls to hold an actual hustings event, has not provided a cornerstone event of any open election process. It has therefore not promoted democratic participation in the election process.
It is further unclear why attendance at previous live events has been given as a factor in the decision, because there have been no previous live events of this nature and import for the simple reason that there have been no previous elections for the role of General Secretary in the Union. Therefore, using attendance at previous other live events as a justification for failing to offer an event that is a key ingredient of an open election process, is highly questionable.
The Union also states, ‘A fully live format would have required additional logistical arrangements, including real-time membership verification, technical support, accessibility provision, moderation of questions to ensure fairness and balance, and recording management. Given the size of the staff team and available resources, the recorded format was considered the most effective way…’ It seems remarkable that an organisation with 15k+ members is unable or unwilling to resource and manage the kind of online event that is readily achievable using widely available technology, including by other unions and organisations.
‘Legal advisor’
I note that the response makes, reference to the Union being guided in these matters by ‘legal advice’ or a ‘legal advisor’. The engagement of a legal advisor presumably involves the use of Union funds, which is notable in relation to the Union’s statement that ‘available resources’ were a factor in its decision not to hold a live hustings event. I therefore request details of the firm used, the relevant expenditure on legal advice and guidance in relation to this election and, finally, the questions that were asked of the legal advisor.
Yours,
Christian Kerr
Attached:
Re: Ballot packs
Photograph of ballot pack cover letter from the General Secretary
Re: ‘Endorsement’ process
July/August 2025 SWU newsletter
AGM notification emails 18/09/25 and 23/09/25
October 2025 SWU newsletter
AGM 2025 online report
Photograph of ballot paper sent to members
Re: ‘Hustings’
March 2026 SWU newsletter