The introduction to the document is a typical Tory piece of doubte-talk. It starts off by saying that "poor industrial relations are not be equated simply with strikes." This is of course true. For example last year 134 workers were killed in accidents caused by illegal acts by employers. This was pretty bad industrial relations; but the Tory proposals have nothing to say on this subject. Similarly since July 1966 successive Labour and Tory governments have deliberately created an extra 250,000 unemployed. This wasn't very good industrial relations either. But again the proposals fail to deal with this. In fact the only thing the proposals do deal with is trade unions and strikes. This isn't an accident. Industrial injuries and deaths and unemployment don't cut profits. Wage rises and strikes prevent employers squeezing as much profit from the workers as they would like. This is why the proposals only deal with trade unions.
The Tory proposals have nothing to do with "poor" industrial relations. Their only aim is to prevent the trade unions defending the living standards of the working class.
No "Rights" for the Individual The Tory proposals are vicious in their attacks on individual workers. The proposals here are obviously meant to intimidate. In particular they would prevent trade unionists even saying certain things. For example the document states that, "It would be an unfair industrial action (i.e. against the law under the Tory proposals) to induce a party to a legally enforceable contract to break it." (Para. 117). The Tories wish to make all contracts legally enforceable. This makes possible the following sort of posttion. A union could sign a contract without the agreement of the workers covered by the contract; unions such as the General and Municipal and the ETU have done this frequently. If a trade unionist argued for a strike in his trade union branch or at a mass meeting, then he could be guilty of "inducing" an illegal industrial action. He could be fined and if he refused to pay the fine he would be imprisoned. On the other hand the company and the union who had signed the agreement would be free to make any propaganda they liked for the contract. In other words anyone calling for a strike would be fined, but anvone opposing it would be tree to do so. This is a typical example of how "fair" the proposais are.
It is worth noting that this proposal is designed to be different from normal legal procedure. Ordinary legal rules ban discussion by either side of the issue under dispute. This proposal on the other hand selectively silences one side only. Of course even ordinary legal rules would be little better; once a contract had been signed then the silencing of both parties would aid the side which wished to retain the contract.
There are many similar paragraphs in the proposals. Para. 169, for example, would make it illegal for anyone to "induce" an industrial action during the compulsory strike delay periods which the Tores intend to introduce.
The laws would apply not only to workers directly concerned in a dispute. It also affects journalists, for example. Any journalist who wrote an article supporting the strikers in any of the situations we have discussed would be liable to be fined. On the other hand anyone would be perfectly free to write an article attacking the strikers. This is another form of censorship. It aims to silence socialist newspapers like The Red Mole but to allow employers' newspapers such as the Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, etc. to continue their attacks on trade unionists. Victimisation Unlimited Another way the Tory proposals would attack individual workers is by aiding employers to victimise men. The paragraphs that deal with this are nos. 51-56. The key sentence is in para. 54. This states that "Neither the employer nor the employee could be compelled to accept an I.T.'s (Industrial Tribunal's) recommendation of reinstatement." Despite all the Tory talk about "protection from unfair dismissal", this paragraph simply states that a victimised worker would have no right to his job back. Some protection!
The direct aim of the Tories and their supporters is victimise and intimidate. The employers' newspaper, The Economist, is already urging victimisation under the new proposals. Its article on October 10th about the proposals say, "activists in some factories may fight against the bill-and will have to be sacked." What Recognition Rights?
The proposals on victimisation make nonsense of paras. 45 and 47 which are supposed to "grant" the right to join a trade union.
The way any employer attempts to stop a union being established in his firm is by sacking the men organising the union. The Tory "victimisation charter" would give the employer a perfect right to do this.
The Scabs' Charter As for the "right" not to join a union, which the Tories aim to introduce, this hardly needs commenting on. The only right this gives is the "right" to ignore majority decisions of the men who work in a plant, the "right" to enjoy trade union pay and conditions without the obligations of trade union membership, and the "right" to scab. The Tory proposals are an open incitement to scabbing.
Clamp-Down on Shop-Floor Organisation An important attack in the Tory proposals is on the powers of shop stewards and union branches. Under paras. 40-42 a Registrar for trade unions would be set up. Only unions which registered with him would be legally allowed to call strikes. The key point here is that the rules such as those in para. 80 are framed so that trade union branches, shop stewards committees and breakaway unions could NEVER register. Under para. ruit, tor example, a snop stewaras comt mittee called a strike for higher pay, or in defence of a victimised colleague, then its members would be fined. If they refused to pay the fine they would be imprisoned. Furthermore, para. 70 also states that "There would be no upper limit on awards of compensation against unregistered industrial relations organisations." This means that shop stewards would have to pay unlimited fines.
Blacking and Sympathy Strikes Outlawed Para. 71 of the document makes illegal blacking and sympathy strikes. It states that it would be an illegal industrial action "to threaten or induce industrial action to persuade any other person not to enter into or perform a commercial contract, unless that person is himself participating in, or directly interested in, or supporting any party to the industrial dispute which gave rise to the original industrial action. This would mean, for example, that an attempt to threaten or induce industrial action to persuade one company not to supply goods to another where the latter but not the former was involved in a dispute would be actionable before the NIRC (National Industrial Relations Court)". This explicitly bans blacking. There is no need to go into what a powerful weapon this would give to the employer. It would mean they could use any labour to obtain supplies to defeat a strike. It Clashes between strikers and police would become commonplace under the new Tory Bill. would make the position of strikers in small factories almost impossible and would greatly weaken the power of all trade unions.
Picketing Picketing and blacking are two of the essentials of trade union action. Having outlawed blacking, the Tories then go on to hit out at picketing. This is done in the paragraphs dealing with commercia contracts In legal terms when a worker takes employment he enters into a commercial contract with the employer. If he withdraws his labour he is in breach of that contract. Under the Tories' proposals, for example, stopping a lorry crossing a picket line would be unlawful as it would cause a breach of a commercial contract to deliver goods.
The Tory proposals are aimed to make effective picketing impossible.
New Courts, New Penalties The National Industrial Relations Court is the body which the Tories would set up to police their new laws. They claim it would be fair and not biassed against trade unionists because it would have an "independent" judge as its head This is a lie. Judges are not "fair", they are enemies of the trade unions. They have already 'shown this by removing, for example, most of the protection of the 1906 Trades Disputes Act.
The Commission on Industrial Relations (CIR) is another "independent" body whose powers would be greatly increased by the Tory proposals. How "impartial" this is can be judged from the fact that it includes among its members such "impartial" men as Leslie Blakeman-expersonnel director at Fords and the man who supervised the victimising of the 17 shop stewards in 1962. Even the right-wing union officials whom Barbara Castle found to sit on this Commission are so disgusted with the role that the Tories would make it play that they are beginning to resign.
Both these bodies are simply respectable "fronts" for anti-union attacks.
Tight Procedure "Agreements" A key section of the Tory proposals, and particularly dangerous, is paras. 118 to 126. These give the CIR powers to impose legally enforceable procedures.
This proposal is far more important than the much talked-about proposals for legally enforceable contracts. Only the most right-wing unions are going to accept that. On procedures however there is need for an agreement. The procedure can be imposed without the union agreeing to it. This means for example that the totally unfair and long-drawn-out procedures of the York Agreement could be made legally enforceable. If workers struck before this entire biassed procedure had been gone through they could be fined.
Legally enforceable procedures would also be used to back up the victimisation proposals. If procedures for dismissal were legally enforced then the firm could victimise a worker, and anyone striking, or even arguing for a strike, for his reinstatement would be fined. Para. 22 would make it an unlawtul act even to threaten a strike for his reinstatement, The paragraphs on procedures reveal completely the Tory lies about being interested in industrial "agreements". A procedure which. is imposed by the CIR is in no sense an agreement -it is something that is dictated to the workers. Bosses' Emergencies The section of the proposals on strike ballots and cooling-oft periods is contained in paras. 1os 176. This section brings us right back to the them up so that the press and government car aim its hysterical propaganda against them.
Firstly the whole definition of "National Emergency" is a twist. For example, during a three-week dockers strike less than 600,000 working days are lost. The Tories would rule that this was a "National Emergency" by usir para. 166 which defines such an emergency. However, in a single year 120 million days pr auction are lost unrougn demperatery-inaucec unemployment, nearly 30 million days are lo through avoidable accidents. But of course th Tories will not consider any of these things a national emergencies.
lo take another example. consider the cas of G.K.N. Sankey. This strike resulted in seve thousand workers being temporarily laid off. Under para. 166 this could be counted as a national emergency. But when GEC sacked 12,000 men permanently, that couldn't coun as a national emergency.
The paras. 165-176 give the Tories two powerful weapons. The first is a 60-day com pulsory strike delay period.
The entire aim of this proposal is to give employers time to prepare to defeat a strike to prevent strike action which needs to be im diate to be effective: for example, a case of victimisation or when workers are told to ha dangerous goods without proper safequards. Strike Ballots Para. 172 would enable the Government to enforce a ballot before a strike. Of course th do not want a ballot before every strike. If t Government made it obligatory that in all str there should be a ballot, then it could lead to situation where members might insist on no return to work before all demands were met. This would give the members some control o their union executives and the Tories want t oppose this at all costs.
Note also that while a ballot would necess to call a strike, it would not be necessary to one off. A typical Tory double standard. The Tories' only interest in ballots is in manipula the outcome.
Other Proposals There are a whole host of other anti-union measures in the Tory document. It states for example that employees must be given intorr tion by the employer about their right "whet or not to belong to a trade union" (para. 59) In effect this means that a soon as a man star work he can be given a piece of paper by the employer which tells him that he does not ha to join a union. What more could the boss w in the way of an opportunity to make propa ganda against the union?
Other proposals could be ured by employ to destroy the resistance to attacks of militar ections of workers. Para. 132, for example allows the CIR to decide what is the appro priate "bargaining unit", i.e. which section o the men the company would have to negotia with. This is especially crucial in productivity deals. For example if the management knew a deal would lead to heavy redundancy in or plant and not in others, it could ask the CIR rule that a single factory or group was not a suitable bargaining unit. If the CIR enforced then the firm would no longer have to negot with the men in the affected factory. Instea they could be outvoted by men in factories groups not affected.
Another paragraph, no. 86, is designed to cripple unions by making possible the seizur their strike funds. This paragraph states that the funds of a union that were available for industrial action could be treated as availabl for the payment of compensation awards:"
Paras. 136 and 139 would be used to kee militant unions from citting on nanotiatina d