MINERS The undersigned wish to protest at the running of the miners conference held in Barnsley on 26th March. This conference was supposed to discuss the programme put forward in the paper The Collier. However, in order for such a conference to be a success then every viewpoint which was in general agreement with the aims of the paper should have been represented. Either the conference should only have been open to members of the NUM or all political organisations should have been represented However, no other organisations other than the International Socialists were informed of the conference or invited to attend, and representatives of other political viewpoints were in fact excluded from the conference. If all this is justified by a claim that this was an 1.S. conference, we would ask why it was in this case that the membership of an editorial board of a paper supposed to be run by rank and file miners was changed at an I.S. conference. In the light of all this we protest at the exclusion of other viewpoints from that of 1.S. from the conference, and the fact that other organisations were not invited and told it was taking place. The right wing, in order to cover up its own lack of democracy is always going on about "manipulation" and 'control". Socialists should therefore give them no examples, such as this conference, which play into their hands.
David Wilson, NUM Bamsley Barry Thornton, NUM Barnsley and Editorial Board, The Collier John Cotter, NUM Barmley and Editorial Board, The Collier Peter Thornton, NUM Barnsley Jimmy Miller, branch secretary, NUM Kellingley, and Yorkshire C.P. District Malcolm Ball, NUM Ian Taylor, NUM Seafield, Foe, and Ed Board, The Collier Terry Ellis, NUM Coventry Liverpool dockers are standing firm in their determination to protect their jobs by preventing the extension of "stuffing" (filling) and "stripping" (emptying) of containers by anyone other than registered dockers. They are blacking the lorries of firms which pack containers at inland sites. In particular, they refuse to handle the lorries of three firms. Heaton's, Bishop Wharf and Craddocks. Heaton's went to the Industrial Relations Court and obtained an injunction to end the blacking. At a subsequent hearing of the court on March 29th a £5,000 fine was imposed on the TGWU for breaking the original court order. Sir John Donaldson, president of the five-man court, said the contempt was "aggravated" by the refusal of the union to attend the hearing. The court also decided that if the TGWU did not pay the fine it would issue writs of sequestration enabling it to take over the assets of the union.
The decision by the National Industrial RelaSons Court to impose the fine was matched by the decision of Liverpool's 5,000 dockers CApil to to Continue the black he of theulage firms. The dockers took their decisons against the advice and wishes of the loal TGWU officials, The Times of April 11th reports Mr. Lew Lloyd, Liverpool district docks secretary of the TGWU as saying. "1 advised against "blacking' because of the law of the land".
The aim of the fine and the whole action was made very clear in court. Counsel for Heaton's Transport said: The bone that the company has to pick is not with the union as a whole but with this particular action in the Liverpool docks*. What is being attempted is to force the TGWU leadership to police its own militants, In line with TUC policy, the TGWU has refused to recognise the National Industrial Relations Court. However, if it pays the fine or attempts to force the militants to lift the blacking it will be de facto recognising the validity of the Court.
It seems unlikely that the Government warranged" this confrontation at this particular Just now, in the aftermath of its defeat miners, its general tactic is ic strategy in industry, of unaltered: it is endeavouring to emasculate the trade union movement in its as T.& G. defies Industrial Relations Court drive to increase profit margins so that an investment boom can be underpinned. However, the miners' strike taught the Government that direct confrontation before the militancy of the workers had been tamed or eroded is very risky.
If it did want to make an example of a section of the union movement to compensate for its humiliation at the hands of the miners it is unlikely that it would have chosen the giant TGWU for the operation. However, such things do not always go according to plan. Even the machinery of the Industrial Relations Act has some small relative autonomy. The Government, regardless of its general tactic at this stage, may well have set into motion processes it cannot control.
If the bluff of the National Industrial Relations Court is called, the IRA will be virtually unviable. This would be a major defeat for the Government, a gigantic loss of face and tremendous blow to its credibility in the eyes of British big business. The Economist of April 1, put it like this: "If the Government itself does not take early action against a union under the new Industrial Relations Act, it is likely that union militants will be encouraged to flout the act pretty much from the start." Whitehall has intimated that it would like such cases "to be settled out of court" The Economist added. An additional reason for the Government not wanting to have the court's bluff called is the effect on the so-called moderate union leaders. If it can be demonstrated that it is possible for the Court to be flouted then the last argument the "moderates" have for the necessity of registration and cooperation with the industrial Relations Act machi inery falls. The stakes on both sides are very high. If the Court climbs down, the Government's strategy suffers a huge set-back. If the TGWU pay the fine (even if by some sophisticated formula) the trade union chiefs will be exposed as paper tigers, and it would be the thin edge of the wedge to a general acceptance of the Industrial Relations Act.
With the present mood of the working class any attempt to impose the fine by the seizure of the TGWU's property would set the scene for a really large-scale confrontation. It is not only the Government which is afraid of this outcome-the trade union bureaucrats have a dread of mass struggles which they cannot control. Thus a real challenge faces the whole trade union movement. Revolutionaries must argue that everything must be done to ensure that there is no climb down by the TGWU leadership, and in the event of the stakes escalating the whole movement must be used to force defeat on the Government and its Industrial Relations Act. It is especially important to ensure that there is no retreat on the policy of non-recognition of the court. The one-day strike called by the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions for May Ist will give a focus of activity for this policy However, much more than a defensive response is called for. What is at stake in this struggle is the right of workers to exert a Far from retreating on this issue we must argue for the right of all workers to take whatever steps they consider necessary to stop redundancies, attacks on working conditions and increase wages. The rights which the Liverpool dockers are defending should be extended to the whole working class and developed to take in all aspects of the work situation.
-Pat Jordan