An Exercise in Redeployment. The Report of a Trade Union Study Group

273 Pages·1969·4.966 MB·English

by  Ron Thomas (Eds.)

An Exercise
in Redeployment
THE REPORT OF A TRADE UNION STUDY GROUP
Edited by
RON THOMAS
1 · · ·
PERGAMON PRESS
OXFORD · LONDON · EDINBURGH · NEW YORK
TORONTO · SYDNEY · PARIS · BRAUNSCHWEIG
Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford
4 & 5 Fitzroy Square, London W.l
Pergamon Press (Scotland) Ltd., 2 & 3 Teviot Place, Edinburgh 1
Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford,
New York 10523
Pergamon of Canada Ltd., 207 Queen's Quay West, Toronto 1
Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., 19a Boundary Street, Rushcutters Bay,
N.S.W. 2011, Australia
Pergamon Press S.A.R.L., 24 rue des Écoles, Paris 5e
Vieweg & Sohn GmbH, Burgplatz 1, Braunschweig
Copyright © 1969 R. R. Thomas
First edition 1969
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 69-17870
Printed in Great Britain by A. Wheaton & Co., Exeter
This book is sold subject to the condition
that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent,
resold, hired out, or otherwise disposed
of without the publisher's consent,
in any form of binding or cover
other than that in which
it is published.
08 013421 1 (flexicover)
08 013422 X (hardcover)
Preface
IT HAS been estimated that when the TSR2 was cancelled some-
thing like 5000 aircraft workers had to find other jobs. At the
Bristol establishment of Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd., manage-
ment informed the trade unions that because of the cancellation,
the labour force would have to be reduced by about 2000 over
a period of 3 months. During those 3 months I had discussions
with a number of trade union members, employed by the company,
who were attending an extra-mural class. I was conscious of the
redeployment problems involved and keen to test the assumption
that there were arrangements to ensure that the released TSR2
workers would find their way into industries where their skills
were needed and more especially that their skills would be used
to make a more positive contribution towards reducing the
balance of trade deficit.
I assumed that the 2000 in Bristol who would be made redund-
ant would be selected in the conventional way. Redundancy,
after all, was no new problem. My interest increased and shifted
when I learned that the conventional method of reducing the
labour force had been rejected by the trade unions. And, as far
as I could judge, the indications were that a committee of shop
stewards and staff representatives had more or less taken over
the problem and were dealing with it in a way which, if not unique,
seemed to me to be worthy of a detailed study. There was an
immediate response to my invitation from the shop stewards and
staff representatives. All but a couple of those invited agreed to
join the study group.
I have no intention of identifying the contribution of any
particular member—that is the last thing the group would want.
vii
viii PREFACE
It might help, however, if I say a brief word about the composition
of the group, if only to make clear that the lay committees set
up by the trade unions were, in my view, more than adequately
represented in our discussions. Firstly, almost all members of
the study group were shop stewards or staff representatives. Its
members included the chairman and leading members of the
twelve-man lay negotiating committee, members of the main
policy committee and publicity sub-committee, as well as trade
union members who gave us their views on what things looked
like from the shop floor.
The study group met for a two-hour session almost every week
over a period of something like 18 months. What happened at
BSE in Bristol after the cancellation of the TSR2 was recorded,
discussed and analysed, criticized and argued about week in, week
out. It was indeed a great help to be able to make use of detailed
minutes and the News Flashes, which had been prepared, dupli-
cated, and distributed in the weeks following the budget announce-
ment. One leading shop steward in the study group had kept
minutes so comprehensive that the task must have involved him
in many hours of patient work. All members had copies of this
material, so that we were able to analyse the negotiations, detail
by detail, and, of course, continually to cross-examine fellow
group members who were largely responsible for what was
negotiated. Each session was tape recorded. From the tape and
the material I produced a draft which was criticized, amended,
and then accepted. An attempt was made, by the use of a question-
naire and interviews, to try and find out what happened at least
to some of the TSR2 workers. What, in my view, finally emerged,
I leave for fuller treatment in the introduction. Before I conclude
this preface, however, there is a need to explain quite clearly
an important feature of this study, otherwise misunderstandings
might arise. The study group (as indicated earlier) was made
up of trade union lay members, shop stewards, and staff repre-
sentatives. The main content of the report is how they saw and
handled the problems. How they saw management's reactions,
the efforts of the full-time trade union officials, the response from
PREFACE ix
Ministry of Labour officers, attitudes on the shop floor, in the
office, and so on. I saw my role as one of stimulating discussion,
asking, I hope, some of the right questions, probing for answers,
adding comment when it seemed worth while to do so, and, of
course, writing the drafts. A copy of the final report was sent to
a number of the full-time trade union officials concerned, repre-
sentatives of the management of BSE, and to the Ministry of
Labour asking for their comments.
The full-time officers felt (and rightly so) that it would be
impossible to adequately describe their role in this exercise with-
out almost writing another book. Leading the initial negotiations,
their efforts at Review Meetings and whenever there was an
impasse between management and the lay negotiating committee
involved the full-time officers in many long hours of collective
bargaining. The members of the study group recognized these
efforts and paid tribute to the work of the full-time officers. That
recognition is an integral part of this exercise and is in no way
diminished by concentrating attention onto the "Shop Floor
negotiators".
A representative of the Management of B.S.E. in his personal
capacity provided us with certain comments which have been
included as footnotes on the appropriate pages. The comments of
the Ministry of Labour—Western Region are included under
Appendix 1.
Since this exercise was completed there have been changes in
Government policies and personalities in the areas we cover; the
work of Industrial Training Boards, especially the Engineering
I.T.B., has expanded rapidly with craftsmen's "modules" and
retraining; the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions
and Employers' Associations has been published, as well as a
dozen research papers and other material, the implications of
which we were unable to consider in this study.
A final personal comment. What is attempted in the pages of
this study may or may not be of interest to many people. It
ought to be food for thought for those who see shop stewards as
the "whipping boys" of British industry. In my own view it fully
χ PREFACE
justifies itself if only for one reason. It is, as far as I know, the
first time that a group of ordinary trade union members have sat
down night after night to record and to publish how they reacted
to and handled a difficult and recurring industrial relations prob-
lem—An Exercise in Redeployment.
RON THOMAS
Members of the Study Group
V. J. BAKER Amalgamated Engineering Union
R. L. BEYNON ditto
J. BLACKLEY ditto
T. P. CLEMENTS Electrical Trades Union
G. CLOTHIER Amalgamated Engineering Union
R. GARDNER ditto
J. A. HAYDOCK Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians'
Association
W. T. HEARD Amalgamated Engineering Union
B. JENKINS ditto
L. SMITH ditto
D. A. WATERS ditto
RON THOMAS(1) Department of Extra-Mural Studies,
University of Bristol
(1) Ron Thomas, who edited this book, was at Ruskin College, Oxford for
2 years and then took a PPE degree at Balliol College. He is now a staff tutor
in economics and industrial studies at Bristol.
xi
A cknowledgemen ts
MEMBERS of the Study Group would like to acknowledge the
facilities made available by the Department of Extra-Mural
Studies, University of Bristol. To a number of young women both
in and outside the department who gave up time to type and retype,
photocopy and duplicate material, including Mrs. Sandra
Powell, Mrs. Connie Smith, Miss Isobel Pierce, and Mrs. Joan
Clothier they would extend their thanks. We would want to
mention also those redundant workers who completed the
questionnaires and invited us into their homes for interviews. The
editor acknowledges the help given by his wife, his colleague, J. L.
Thomas, and in carrying out the survey the assistance given by
Mr. and Mrs. G. Clothier and Mr. D. Gamlin (all three now at
Ruskin College, Oxford). Our thanks are due also to the Pergamon
Press for publishing this exercise. But while so many helped us—
we accept full responsibility for any errors, misconceptions, and/or
criticisms which might be found or might emerge from this study.
xiii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
THIS is the report of a trade union study group whose meetings
were facilitated by the Department of Extra-Mural Studies of the
University of Bristol although the report itself expresses only the
views of the group. The preface explains how and why the study
group was set up. It indicates that in Bristol the cancellation of
the TSR2 meant that something like 2000 Bristol Siddeley
Engines Ltd. employees had to find other jobs. The preface also
indicates that the main inspiration for this study came from what
seemed to be a rather unique development in a redundancy
situation. This was, in effect, that when management's proposals
to deal with the redundancy along conventional or traditional
lines had been rejected by the trade unions, a group of shop
stewards and staff representatives accepted a challenge to find
some alternative way of dealing with what was quite a substantial
reduction in the labour force. Not unexpectedly, this remained
the dominant theme of the study group discussion which went
on week after week, what, in other words, the acceptance of this
challenge meant—in terms of finding an alternative method
acceptable to both staff and manual workers, setting up the
machinery, negotiating almost day by day with management,
meeting officials of the Ministry of Labour, communications,
publicity, and so on. The leading shop-floor negotiators and
representatives of the lay policy committees as well as other trade
union members not directly involved in the negotiations made up
the study group and contributed to the discussions. What finally
emerged falls into three main sections.
We begin with a background description of the aircraft
industry which leads on to a discussion of the TSR2 and the
1
2 INTRODUCTION
thinking and expectations behind the Government's decision to
cancel this project. A discussion on redundancy then follows with
the group's thoughts directed towards the sort of questions
which are not very often discussed. We then give some indication
of the extent of the experience of members of the study group in
previous redundancies.
The main content of the study covers a period of something like
3 months. It describes how the staff and manual trade unions
agreed to a joint policy, established joint negotiations with the
company, and how certain shop stewards and staff representatives
"felt their way" towards a voluntary leaving system with sever-
ance pay based on length of service. The mechanics of the volun-
tary system are explained, and members of the study group recall
the problems, the frustrations, and difficulties of getting the
system off the ground and pushing it along to its satisfactory
completion. Leading members of the policy, negotiating, and
sub-committee which were set up to organize and service the
scheme, have a good deal to say about the handling of the many
problems which emerged.
Most of the time we try to focus attention on to the shop and
office floors; to see through the eyes of a group of workers what
it means when 2000 have to find other jobs. We attempt to
capture the atmosphere of "will it be me", the reactions, attitudes,
and criticisms where any decision to reduce the labour force
hurts most. We also seek to give an understanding of how a group
of shop stewards and staff representatives handled almost day-
by-day instalments of negotiations with management. As certain
issues like overtime, severance pay, and the movement of labour
loomed large in these negotiations, we discuss them under separate
headings. One of the most impressive things about this exercise
was the way the trade unionists organized their publicity, com-
munications, and pressure-group activities. Indicative of this was
the almost daily publication of a News Flash. (We reproduce
examples in Appendix IV). Over 100,000 copies were printed
and distributed. Those involved discuss this achievement, along
with reports on their visits to the House of Commons, meetings