BRITAIN’S largest publicsector union Unison argued yesterday it should not be forced to rerun a leadership contest if it is found to have breached rules.

Unison leader Dave Prentis was re-elected in 2015, but the union is now disputing challenges from all three of his opponents that it did not follow election procedures.

The case centres around a meeting at which London regional secretary Linda Perks briefed staff on campaigning for Mr Prentis’s re-election, and staff were told to ask for “special chocolate biscuits” if they wanted more campaign leaflets.

Unison contests that Ms Perks, who was disciplined and moved to a position in the union’s national office, was acting without sanction.

The union’s rules state that officials are allowed to campaign but only in their spare time.

Assistant certification officer Mary Stacey, an official who presides over such union disputes, heard summing-up arguments yesterday Yunus Bakhsh, representing defeated candidate John Burgess, said other members of the regional management team present at the meeting were given roles in Ms Perks’s speech and did not object.

“It wasn’t simply Linda Perks hijacking that meeting, there was a strategy,” he said.

“They didn’t ask her to stop, they participated, they encouraged her.”

Barrister Ijeoma Omambala, representing runner-up and Unison local government head Heather Wakefield, said: “The whole of the Unison submission is based on a characterisation of Ms Perks as a single bad apple in the barrel.”

George Binette, representing Unison NEC member Jon Rogers, added: “There has been a spectre haunting these proceedings thus far, and that is the very absence of the general secretary.”

Anthony White QC, representing the union, argued there was no evidence of malpractice beyond the leaked recording of the London region staff meeting. “Mr Prentis, though popular … does have political opponents,” he said.

“Those people are not backward about coming forward.”

He said this “strongly suggests there was no wider misconduct, even within the London region.”

Mr White argued that even if Ms Stacey found evidence of wrongdoing, she was not required to order a rerun.

He said the plaintiffs had made “no attempt … to show any evidence” that the events complained about would have affected the outcome.

He pointed to analysis supporting this argument by Electoral Reform Services, which ran the election and also faces criticism over its conduct.

Ms Stacey queried Mr White’s reliance on the presumption that her judgement should follow public election case law, where the margin of victory would affect whether a rerun was called.

She will publish a written judgement, which would normally appear within a month of closing arguments.