As a global union federation, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) is supposed to fight for workers’ rights – not undermine them.
Senior leaders appear to face zero accountability for mismanagement or misconduct. The ITF is falling short of its mission as a result.
ITF management abruptly sacked two union representatives in February 2026:
Both are committed trade unionists with unblemished records of service.
Their union, Unite the Union, immediately objected to the unfair dismissals and raised concerns of trade union victimisation. Staff responded by balloting for strike action.
The terminations contravened internal policy, past practice, and management’s previous commitments.
1. Disregard for due process and legal guidelines
Both Erin and Ryan had filed grievances regarding their treatment by ITF management during the restructuring process.
The ITF said their grievances would be heard – but then dismissed them instead.
On December 5, 2025, as noted above, the ITF confirmed invitations to a union rep for both a grievance hearing and an individual consultation.
On 15 January, 2026, the ITF terminated him before scheduling either. The letter stated “We do not believe further consultation would be meaningful”. And that there was no “feasible outcome” to the grievance despite it not having been heard yet.
2. Immediate harmful impacts
After issuing the terminations, the ITF did not allow the union reps to work their three-month notice period as outlined in the CBA. This meant that they were swiftly excluded from the workplace and their ability to act as union representatives.
Ryan was a new parent and migrant worker on an employer-sponsored visa. The ITF’s refusal to honour their contractual notice period accelerated his removal with his young family from the UK.
3. Direction from above
Why did ITF management suddenly reverse its position and behave in such a reckless manner?
A letter from Unite the Union to the ITF General Secretary Stephen Cotton sheds light on this critical question:
Excerpt from January 22, 2026 letter: “Unite were informed by your AGS that the decision to proceed in this manner had been taken at a meeting presided over by you a few days prior to the notices being issued. This is therefore a decision by the most senior officer of this organisation, in breach of ITf policies, that will hasten the mandatory repatriation of a migrant family apparently in order to settle scores with the staff union.”
4. Settling scores
Both reps had previously represented colleagues in difficult cases and challenged management’s conduct, including the unfair dismissal of a migrant woman of colour in June 2024 who was forced to return to India.
The sacking of this outspoken woman colleague marked a significant rupture in the industrial relations within the ITF, after which the union reps experienced detrimental treatment.
The grievances they filed raised specific concerns of management interference and impropriety during the restructuring process.
The restructure coincided with the first-ever industrial action ballot and strike by ITF staff.
These grievances – and management’s continued refusal to give them a fair and independent hearing – are the subject of the next instalment in this series.
5. Silencing dissent
Evidence suggests that the decision was made to terminate the union reps and then deal with the consequences – if any – later.
Management proceeded to undermine and then unilaterally withdraw from the appeal process outlined in the CBA.
This disregard for due process is indicative of a pervasive lack of accountability within the ITF, and a concerted effort to remove outspoken voices as a chilling strategy to silence dissent.
The following corrective measures should be taken:
The ITF Executive Board (EB) announced an “urgent investigation” in October 2025 after Novara Media published serious allegations of a misogynist workplace culture sexual harassment by General Secretary Stephen Cotton.
The investigation opened in April 2026, and interviews commenced in August, while submissions will close at the end of September.
Over the past year, the ITF has failed to take necessary precautions to protect the integrity of the process, including breaking commitments made in its official response to the article.
This is despite concerted efforts by the ITF Staff Union, advocacy group ITFWomenC190, and some ITF-affiliated unions to push for a more appropriate process.
1. Failure to hold General Secretary to same standard as other staff
The ITF’s response to Novara asserted that its policies are “applied to all individuals regardless of position they hold”.
However, there is a stark difference between the treatment of the General Secretary (GS) and the treatment of other ITF staff placed under investigation.
From 2021-22, an assistant regional secretary was put on leave with pay pending an investigation concerning his role in workplace sexism and harassment.
The formal notice stressed that this leave-of-absence was a neutral act undertaken as a precautionary measure “in order to ensure a fair and unbiased enquiry”.
In 2024, several staff members were prevented from travelling or engaging with affiliates pending an investigation into a heated conversation that took place in ITF House after the abrupt sacking of a colleague from the Global South.
Notably, the application of restrictions in these previous cases were overseen by the GS, so he appears to be holding himself to a different standard.
The October 2025 statement from the ITF EB refers to the seriousness of the allegations against the GS three times – yet no such limits were placed on him.
2. Failure to properly safeguard staff during the investigation process
The ITF’s response committed to providing a safe workplace for all staff. This is required by law.
Nonetheless, the published “safeguarding framework” prioritises the interests of the GS over the wellbeing of staff. Rather than placing any restrictions on his activities, the framework puts the onus on staff to exclude themselves if they feel uncomfortable.
The ITF’s tone-deaf “business as usual” approach included issuing an invitation to all staff to join the GS for end-of-year drinks. Conversely, former staff were banned from attending a leaving party for a long-serving employee due to management’s “safety” concerns.
While official communications repeatedly referred to a “safe reporting” mechanism, the supplied guidance clearly illustrated that this process is not suitable for complaints concerning senior leadership as it relies on their direct involvement to function. In practice, the “safe reporting” process is a dead end.
3. Failure to protect process from perception of bias or interference
The ITF’s response recognised that independent processes “ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in all matters of conduct.”
In this case, the appearance of independence is replaced by a perception of immunity due to the lack of restrictions.
The GS remains at liberty to wine-and-dine affiliates (with negligible oversight) and hire-and-fire staff. As the subject of an ongoing investigation, such actions risk being interpreted as attempts to curry favour or settle scores.
The ITF unnecessarily politicised this matter by erring against the precautionary principle and following past precedent. Complainants and their advocates were subjected to vitriol, including claims that they were “enemies of the ITF” engaging in “miserable demagoguery”.
4. Failure to acknowledge reality of the ITF’s shortcomings
The ITF’s response claimed that “By any measure, progress has been made to advance gender equality”.
This reads as defensive posturing rather than genuine engagement with the issues at hand, particularly given the longstanding concerns with sexism and inequalities at the ITF.
ITF management and board members failed to protect the integrity of the investigation process. This is indicative of a broader culture of impunity that permits sexism, harassment, and other forms of misconduct to persist.
The following corrective measures can be taken:
The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) Executive Board authorised a 25% cut to London-based staff in 2025 after being shown a concerning projection of the organisation’s financial sustainability.
The ITF’s 2025 financial report – published in August by the UK Certification Officer – raises serious questions about this approach.
1. Manufactured crisis? Severe staff cuts despite healthy finances
In 2025, the ITF’s income exceeded expenses by £6.1 million, even after spending over £6.5 million on redundancy costs, and £2.5 million on external consultant fees.
The scale of redundancies (and their uneven application) drastically reduced the organisation’s capacity to deliver on the approved 2024 Congress Vision.
According to documentation from the staff union:
2. Huge payouts to senior management
Redundancy costs included £0.9 million for Officers. Only two left in 2025, including one who returned almost immediately as an external consultant.
Did the ITF pay an average of £464,500 to each Officer who left in 2025?
Two additional Officers left in 2026, however their roles are being replaced immediately, not being made redundant.
3. Flawed long-term projections
The financial return references a 4-year reserve policy for operational costs – already far above sector norms.
This is not the 5-year period used in the projection rubber-stamped by the “Financial Sustainability Group” that led to the authorisation for mass redundancies.
The 2025-2035 projection had other underlying flaws including:
4. Limited transparency and spending controls
The financial return only provides a partial picture because it is a top-level view.
Overly broad reporting categories fail to give a detailed view of expenses such as external consultants, business class travel, or entertaining – areas where sufficient controls are lacking.
The financial return also fails to note potential liabilities faced by the organisation due to pending claims of non-compliance with laws and regulations including unfair dismissals involving trade union victimisation.
A record £0.5 million remains outstanding in owed affiliation fees. This speaks to a degree of dissatisfaction among affiliates, which is only likely to increase unless genuine efforts are made to ensure better stewardship of the organisation.
Bottom line: The ITF’s current financial reporting, oversight, and controls have failed to prevent mismanagement or protect Congress-mandated priorities.
In line with best practices, more robust measures are needed including:
