• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

The strike record

THE FINAL session of the conference provided a forum for those old — and perhaps too friendly? — adversaries, Mr Jack Mather and Mr Alex Kitson, to discuss industrial relations under the Act. Jack Mather's devastating analysis of the worsening strike record in the past year matched Alex Kitson's reflection of conventional trade union hostility to the Act.

Mr Kitson (perhaps with tongue in cheek) suggested for the benefit of Common Market transport operators, and others, that the TGWU would be sending their top sharpshooter, Mr Alan Law, to help to vitalize a moribund trade union movement in countries like Germany — a clear reference to earlier remarks of Mr Herbert Bress.

Mr Mather reminded the conference that in his address last year he had underlined four items which would have an enormous bearing on industrial relations. These were: EEC membership; the rate of social change; inflation; and the Industrial Relations Act. The last two items, jointly, had produced a devastating situation.

The year 1971 had yielded the highest rate of man-days lost in industrial disputes (13.5 million) but the first six months of 1972 had exceeded this loss, with 15.5 m. days wasted. Compared with figures for earlier years — the average time lost through strikes between 1951 and 1967 was of the order of 3.3 m. days annually — the present situation was frightening. There had been two major stoppages, in the mines and docks, this year. Enormous wage claims were being presented, such as 40 per cent at Fords. The power workers might not be satisfied with less than 10 per cent. In road haulage the current claim was of the order of 40 per cent.

Some commentators considered that the Government had deliberately sought a confrontation, but who would have guessed that the battleground would have been road haulage?

Mr Mather said it was hard to disentangle the Industrial Relations Act from recent events in the industry. The stuffing and stripping of containers was a demarcation dispute before the Act was passed. He thought the question to ask was whether the Act, as it had been applied, had helped or aggravated the situation.

On this, Bob Heaton's containers were still on the cherry blossom list; five men narrowly avoided prison, then went to prison, then were released in a pantomime procedure which could only bring contempt on the legal processes; the TGWU was £55,000 poorer and it now knew that it was to be held responsible for the actions of its stewards — although it had no more control over them than it ever had. (How could it, asked Mr Mather, since authority in a trade union sprang from the rank and file.) The Act had not prevented the Jones /Aldington committee, "by what authority I am not sure", from giving away some road haulage work to dockers — or making it uneconomic by imposing dockers' wage levels. The recent events would tend to bring drivers' wages up to dockers' levels — an objective confirmed by the TGWU journal. Some lawyers were now a lot richer as a result of recent litigation over the Act.

Turning to wider aspects. Mr Mather noted that the charge of unfair industrial practice had been levelled — the blacking of containers and inducing a breach of contract — with results known to all. It had been established that trade unions were responsible for the actions of the stewards. The cooling-off period and the ballot procedure had been applied in the rail dispute, without beneficial results. All but 33 of 408 trade unions on the Registrar's provisional register had de-registered, and of those 33, 32 had been suspended from the TUC.

De-registration was predictable trade union policy and was a clear indication of the movement's dis-association with the Act. It was foreseen that the TUC membership would be split, with consequent erosion of authority.

Such effects could only harm industrial relations, said Mr Mather. "Our only hope for an effective, regulated, tolerant and fair relationship between labour and capital lies in fostering the responsibility and authority of the trade unions and the TUC. To undermine the representative quality of the TUC or individual unions is to encourage the anarchy that the Act set out to prevent".

The division within the TUC had been paralleled by hints of splits within individual trade unions. There was a move on Humberside for some lorry drivers to quit the TGWU and form another union or join a smaller union. "That would not do the TGWU or employers any good", said Mr Mather. The Bridlington Agreement which afforded some protection from inter-union poaching had been largely superseded by the Act.

Anticipating further contentious matters, Mr Mather suggested that the independent arbitration body set up by the TUC and CBI was a voluntary body attempting to re-establish the 'services which used to be offered by the Arbitration services of the Ministry of Labour, and which had been sorely missed. The new body might be construed as a rival mechanism to the Industrial Tribunals, and as such a challenge to the Act.

Wrongful dismissal

It was a little known fact that case law was being established by the Industrial Tribunals who had heard 1,100 cases of wrongful dismissal in a mere five months.

To bring an action for wrongful dismissal an employee must prove that he was dismissed and had not resigned or walked Out of his own accord. The employer must establish that he had a firm reason for dismissal and he must prove that his reason was sufficient. So far there had been six main reasons for failure of the employers' case:—

(1) Lack of warning of the employer's dissatisfaction.

(ii) Precipitate action.

(iii) Change of attitude and required standards of employer.

(iv) Attempts to force change of duties without the employee's consent.

(v) Insufficient account taken of previous good conduct.

(vi) Confirmation of dismissal without due enquiry by superiors.

Where cases had been dismissed by tribunals the most successful plea by the employer had been on the grounds of the employee's poor capability or conduct, with due warnings given.

Mr Mather felt this was an important area where the Act was proving to be beneficial. The Code of Industrial Relations Practice could have more impact than the Act itself if — as the Government had stated — the application of the Law was to be the last resort and the code was to be used as a basis for acceptable conduct by the NIRC and the tribunals. (It had already been quoted in one case of wrongful dismissal.) Some concern was now being expressed about the Act's requirement for disclosure of information for collective bargaining purposes and for general information to employees.

It was not known how many companies had written in -disclaimer" clauses, nor was it known whether any registered trade union or an employer would take the other side to a tribunal on this aspect. But there had been at least one case of a trade union member taking his union to a tribunal to enforce his membership rights concerning accredited years of union membership.

Nothing had been seen so far of the potential problem surrounding the agency shop conflicting with an individual's rights not to belong to a union. What would happen if someone refused to "consort with the ungodly" or pay subscriptions, or pay lieu subscriptions to a charity? Many personnel managers had little intention of using the Act. There was a clear long-term danger in upsetting harmonious working relationships by introducing the law into a voluntary system of negotiation and consultation.

Mr Mather concluded that recent dramatic events were merely the first shots in a prolonged period of adjustment to a new order of industrial relations — if the Act remained on the Statute Book. So far, the Act had done nothing to improve relationships, reduce disputes, or contain wage escalation. There were many contentious clauses still to be argued in the Courts. Particular tribunal decisions were being made which would affect everyone, but they were getting little publicity. Although the trade union standpoint was clear it was not known what action individual companies would take in using the Act's provisions. It appeared that most employers would ignore the Act as far as possible.

"We told them so" Mr Kitson began by asserting that union predictions about the Act's consequences had largely been confirmed. He felt the Government would be glad to dit.:1 the Act. There had been no meaningful consultation with the CBI and TUC, before legislation was finalized — the Government had been adamant that the Act's "seven pillars" must not be altered.

Although thousands of employers were still negotiating freely with unions, making agreements which were not legally binding, some small firms who were anti-union were attempting to protect themselves by recourse to the courts. They thought trade union funds would be available to meet business losses. Mr Kitson said he must warn any such firms that the unions would protect the funds of their members.

Criticizing • the actions of some Government Ministers in recent disputes, Mr Kitson said the trade unions wanted facilities for better industrial relations base( on free negotiations between employers an unions.

The TGWU were looking at the problen of union discipline; the fringe elements wh( supported intimidation, and such cam paigns as the "You out, us in" witnessed a Chobham Farm recently, would not be tolerated. He revealed that productivity had in fact increased at Chobham Farm since the absorption of 18 dockers. Such things were not given any national publicity.

Mr Kitson saw little advantage in the CBI /TUC plan for arbitration. He preferred that the machinery scrapped in favour of the I.R. Act should be revived.

As regards industrial tribunals, he conceded that the trade unions should perhaps have been more co-operative, at least to the extent of defending members in redundancy cases. However, there was no chance that the trade unions would sell any negotiating rights in return for a wages policy. The unions had made this clear to the Labour Party too. There was a political aspect to the bargaining situation. The unions were being blamed for the total situation over which they had no control.

Mr Kitson concluded by urging that technological changes should be faced by moves for a shorter working week, longer holidays and earlier retirement. Action by the Government on these lines would be fully supported by his union.

Mr D. R. Baker, transport director of the Tesco Group, suggested that inter-union disputes needed attention from the trade union movement. Mr Kitson said this had been a serious problem but the TUC's machinery was effective in minimizing trouble. The reduction in the number of unions in recent years also helped. There had been only four inter-union disputes in England this year and one in Scotland.

Would the speakers agree that the Road Haulage Wages Council had outlived its usefulness, was the question from Mr F. M. Fieldhouse, group traffic manager, British Ropes Ltd. "Yes", said Mr Mather, who believed it had been inflationary: the agreed increases in basic rates had not been applied only to the minimum pay scales but higherpaid men demanded proportionate rises. Mr Kitson regretted that the voluntary machinery to replace the Wages Council had failed some years ago because of the inability of the RHA to control member firms. For a time the Wages Council had lived on to preserve some sort of pay structure in rural areas but the TGWU now saw that council as a device to keep wages low. He was amazed that employer representatives who paid much more in their own firms should vote in favour of low rates when serving as Council members.

Another questioner wondered whether, in view of the unions' reaction to the I.R. Act, we could expect to see similar treatment of the EEC laws to which they took exception.

Alex Kitson said he was not happy about the labour problems of EEC entry. The unions had not co-operated with the I.R. Act, but the EEC legislation posed a different problem. Possibly the trade unions would refuse to co-operate with EEC measures if their views were disregarded.