This statement provides an overview of our processes and addresses several of the questions raised. We would like to thank all members who contacted us directly, giving us the opportunity to respond to their queries regarding the election in a constructive and direct manner, rather than through social media. As always, we remain available and welcome any further questions from members following this statement.
Communication with Members
The union used a range of established channels to communicate with members about the election including newsletters, email updates, and the union’s website. The election was also covered by several news outlets, including interviews with the candidates. SWU produced candidate guidance and shared information with members through both our website and several email communications.
Some complaints via social media to the union states that some members may have experienced issues receiving emails. While we acknowledge that occasional delivery issues can arise in large membership organisations, there is no evidence of a systemic failure. We have only been contacted by two members regarding non-receipt of emails during the election period; no further members have raised this as an issue. Our email delivery rates typically sit at around 98–99%, which is in line with expected industry standards. In practice, not all sent emails will reach the inbox; a proportion may be affected by soft bounces (for example, spam filtering), employer server or security restrictions, full mailboxes, or temporary server outages.
The SWU website has been consistently maintained and updated to ensure members have access to accurate, current information. The SWU General Secretary role was advertised in editions of the SWU Newsletter, Professional Social Work (PSW) magazine, and on the SWU website from 2nd December 2025 until the close of the nominations period on 2nd March 2026. The role advertisement provided a nomination form and supporting documents that clearly outlined the job description, person specification, and endorsement process.
It is a legal requirement for our membership database to be externally audited. The most recent audit took place on 24th February 2026, with the concluding statement: “We are therefore very happy to report that your membership data is, as it was last year, first class.” This confirmation was also submitted to the Certification Office by the independent inspector.
As only eligible SWU members could vote in this election, it was decided that social media would not be used as a channel to communicate election information to ensure that communication about the election remained accurate, constructive, and accessible to members. Not all members use social media or follow union accounts on social media, so using social media as an official election communication channel would not have been an efficient use of union resources. Members and non-members have been discussing the election on social media, and it is their prerogative to do so.
Ballot Distribution
Regarding ballot distribution, we have been advised that only a very small number of members experienced delays, and only a small number of members contacted us directly. Clear guidance was provided to advise members on what to do if they have not received a ballot paper. Processes were in place to ensure replacement ballot papers could be issued where necessary 1st class. Postal delays, particularly during peak or holiday periods, are outside the union’s direct control. Importantly, there were established mechanisms to ensure all members were able to participate in the vote.
It is unclear why the deadline of 30th April was considered unacceptable for anyone who had not received a ballot paper. On 13th April, email guidance was issued to all members explaining, how if needed, to request a duplicate ballot paper to be sent and returned via first-class post. We have been advised from the election agent CIVICA that the 29 days between despatch of the SWU voting packs and the deadline for receipt of votes is in line with the voting period for a trade union postal ballot.
The Election Endorsement Committee
The SWU Executive Committee currently consists of eleven elected SWU members. The endorsement process was established initially in 2016 by the then SWU Executive Committee and reviewed by the present Executive for this election. It was included within the documentation directly provided to candidates and made available on the SWU website during the nomination period.
The Endorsement Committee for this election was approved by the SWU Executive Committee and was made up of four Executive Committee members. On the matter of candidate endorsement, the Endorsement Committee undertook an assessment of candidates through a structured process comprising a written personal statement and a skills test.
An endorsement process was used in the election of the current General Secretary in 2016 and would also have formed part of the 2021 election process, although only one nomination was received on that occasion.
The purpose of the endorsement process was to assess candidates against objective criteria drawn from the job description and person specification. The General Secretary role carries significant organisational and governance responsibilities, including areas such as SWU operations, financial management, employment law, accountability, and trade union legislation. The skills test was therefore introduced as part of the endorsement process to support a fair and structured assessment. All these responsibilities are not a part of social work practice so that’s why we felt it is important to have a skills test for this role and the union responsibilities have grown significantly over the years. It was reviewed and approved by the Endorsement Committee.
Legal advice obtained by the union confirms that a union is entitled to have administrative procedures for nomination, including stipulating appropriate criteria for candidature such as qualifications, experience, and minimum support. It further advises that the union may set such procedures or criteria as it sees fit, provided they do not unreasonably exclude any member from standing. The criteria and procedures must be reasonable in themselves that is, rational, fair, and capable of objective application and must also be applied in a reasonable manner.
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 process guidance issued to candidates reiterated this requirement and confirmed that reasonable adjustments would be made where needed to ensure accessibility and equal opportunity. Candidates were encouraged to request any adjustments in advance with no requests being made. Both candidates also received direct email communication reinforcing these arrangements.
Both candidates were invited to participate in the full endorsement process and were given the same opportunity and timescales to do so, with reasonable adjustments available. One candidate chose not to complete the skills test but completed the written task as part of the endorsement process without any comment; they were informed that, as a result, they would not receive endorsement. This decision was made in line with the published process and requirements.
It is important to note that non-endorsement did not prevent either candidate from standing in the election or affect their eligibility to be nominated. The inclusion of endorsement information was intended to support members in making informed decisions and did not restrict their ability to vote independently.
There is nothing inappropriate in a union providing endorsement information or identifying a preferred candidate, provided the process is transparent, applied consistently, and does not undermine members’ free exercise of their voting rights. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) does not prevent a union leadership from expressing a preference, so long as members retain full autonomy in casting their vote.
No candidates raised any issues with the two-part endorsement process during the nomination process. We are unsure why a candidate then went on social media to diminish the second part of endorsement process during the election period; particularly as they completed the first part of the endorsement process without any objections and were aware of the skills test prior to submitting a nomination form to stand as a candidate.
Formal Hustings / Q & A
With respect to the formal hustings event, 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. The session was publicly and directly advertised to the membership as a live recorded event. Candidates and members were advised in advance that this would be the main election engagement opportunity, with the recording to be shared with the wider membership.
Both candidates were invited to participate and offered a range of dates and times to facilitate attendance. One candidate chose not to take part. The event proceeded as scheduled to ensure that the participating candidate was not disadvantaged by delay, while also maintaining fairness and equal treatment within the agreed format.
Members were invited to submit questions in advance via communications issued through the SWU Newsletter and member mailings. These questions were put to the attending candidate during the session and a full, uncut recording with subtitles was subsequently shared with members to ensure transparency and equal access to the responses.
This format was chosen to provide an inclusive and practical approach for a dispersed membership; it did not require members to have access to a strong internet connection, to a device with a working camera and microphone, or to be free at a certain date and time in order to participate. All members were invited to participate by submitting questions in advance and could view the recording at a time convenient to them.
A format in which members asked questions directly to the candidates on the day—instead of pre-submitting questions—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 union staff team and available resources, the chosen format was considered the most effective way to ensure participation remained members-only, for all members to have an equal chance of participation, and that consistency was maintained for all participating candidates.
Social Media Claims
As the union initially announced, we made a pre-election decision to not engage in any election focused discourse on social media platforms during the election period. We have however 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.
These claims are misleading and do not reflect SWU’s work. Over the past 10 years, the SWU Executive Committee with all its representatives elected from the SWU membership has provided strong, values-led leadership with SWU members and social work principles at its core.
International study trips have always been externally funded with minimal cost to the union. As noted in the April 2026 SWU Newsletter, costs to the union for SWU’s work as co-secretariat of the Cross-Party Group for Social Work a key part of our joint campaign with BASW to improve social worker working conditions also remain low.
The salary of the new General Secretary has been misrepresented—the widely quoted £86k is not a starting salary, and this was clarified but still repeatedly shared. Claims about funding academics for personal gain are totally incorrect; SWU has a strong history of grassroots activism and has instead benefited from academic support offered to the union free of charge.
Member voices remain central in SWU with clear democratic routes available for members to influence decisions, lead campaigns, and take on leadership roles within the union. SWU’s work is supported and highlighted by an active digital presence that continues to engage our membership, the wider social work community, partners and affiliates, and policy makers.
Independent Review of Election Process
The election process itself has not been without challenges, including unfair and inaccurate criticism as well as two formal complaints submitted to the independent election scrutineer and returning officer, Civica UK, regarding our procedures. While SWU remained fully confident in the integrity and robustness of our process, we agreed that Civica UK should undertake an independent review following the formal complaints lodged.
In light of this review, the formal announcement of the election result was delayed to ensure that all matters were fully concluded before the declaration was made. As expected, SWU was able to respond comprehensively to the allegations raised and, following a thorough examination of the election procedures, Civica UK concluded that SWU’s election process had been conducted appropriately and in accordance with the required standards.
In accordance with statutory requirements the scrutineer’s report from Civica UK, including full voting details, is available to our members as a password protected file: https://swu-union.org.uk/about-swu/swu-governance/civica-election-services-report-swu-general-secretary-election-2026
The password required to access this document will be sent to members in the May 2026 SWU Newsletter email on Monday 11th May 2026. If you are a SWU member and have not received this email please contact swu-admin@swu-union.org.uk with your membership details.
Low voter turnout is unfortunately common across many UK trade union elections, with General Secretary elections typically averaging 5–12% of eligible members. The voter turnout for this election was 7% of eligible SWU members. SWU will be looking into ways of boosting membership engagement, starting with a new Union Contact Development Programme.
The SWU General Secretary Election 2026 Result Announcement is available here: https://swu-union.org.uk/2026/05/swu-general-secretary-election-2026-result-announcement