Job-share ‘against Labour rules’ – how does that promote women’s involvement?

no jobshare.png

A follower of the SKWAWKBOX has contacted the blog with details of a situation of some concern. Her BLP (branch Labour party, a sub-group of the constituency Labour party or CLP) elected her to its executive as a joint-Secretary, because the candidates wanted to share the responsibility – which is not insignificant.

The CLP executive objected and referred the matter to the regional Labour HQ. On Friday, she received the following from the CLP Chair:


It appears Labour HQ considers that sharing a role on a branch or constituency ‘exec’ is a breach of the rules – one deserving of ‘further action’.

Labour has a stated aim of increasing the involvement of women at all levels, but banning a ‘job-share’ mitigates against the involvement of women, who are more likely to need shared roles because of family responsibilities.

The SKWAWKBOX would be surprised if the party’s position would stand up if legally challenged, as it appears likely to be intrinsically discriminatory. Below is the advice provided by the HR department of West Berkshire Council to its managers on the handling of ‘job-share’ requests:


While not an employment situation, the same principles of fairness and discrimination would apply – and the advice makes clear that individual requests have to be considered on their merits, so a blanket ban by Labour would be discriminatory.

Even without the legal issues, Labour’s commitment to equality and to achieving parity of involvement are well known, so the party needs to reconsider its position – and if a rule-change is required, so make sure this is done no later than at its annual Conference in Brighton in a few months. If the Greens can job-share their leader’s position, Labour can certainly manage it at a CLP level.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you found this information helpful and can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.


  1. It seems we have anti democratic people employed at various levels in the party machine and not just at the level of General Secretary of the party.Except this decision, on the surface of it,seems merely perverse as opposed to the anti left actions of McNicol.

  2. Does this just apply to seccy? Is it about Data Protection? Can they solve it by changing the names of the roles but doing what they’re doing now?

    1. A number of jobshare secretaries have been in touch, so it seems fairly common. The role changes hands – potentially yearly or more often – so a share would be no worse a DPA risk.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: