Fresh Attack on Public Sector Trade Unions

Even an overwhelming majority in the N.S.A. is not a guarantee of an automatic majority in the country on each and every occasion for each and every measure. That is the lesson which the working class and Trade Union movement has taught the Government through the agitation against the draft bill contained in the White Paper on Employment Relations.

In face of the mounting agitation conducted by the Left parties and the Trade Unions, Government which had already stopped short in its course of proposed legislation, has drawn back and taken a defensive stance. The Minister of Labour told the N.S.A. on April 5th that the Government had decided to limit its proposals in two ways. It would confine its proposals to the Public Sector, leaving the Private Sector out altogether. Further, even in respect of the public sector it would bring legislation only regarding "Employee Participation in Management" and "Establishing an Employees' Trust Fund." (The "only" by the way, is not in the statement but is an interpretation of the statement which contains only these two concrete proposals. After all, Governments usually retreat, beating the drums of advance!).

As far as the Opposition is concerned - it was an opposition in the country and, as usual, not in the N.S.A. - it is a famous victory, but by no means a complete victory: far from it. Even if the infamous proposals concerning "Terms and Conditions of Employment" stand withdrawn - which is not certain - the no less infamous proposals directed especially against the trade unions in their functioning have not been withdrawn. The cunning manoeuvre against the trade unions is to go forward.

What is brewing cannot be hidden with bland assurances that what is proposed is an addition to the trade unions. In fact they are in substitution of the trade unions.

Consider the facts. The Minister says that he will bring legislation to introduce the employees' councils in the public sector; that is to say, in the public corporations sector; state employees are excluded from the draft bill scheme. And his legislation is to be based on the recommendations in the White Paper.

What, then, are the White paper proposals concerning employees councils?

To begin with they are to be in the separate workplaces and will be elected by secret ballot by the employees of each undertaking that is workplace. The council has to report quarterly to a works meeting but is not subject to the works meeting. A Trade Union is, of course, subject to the decisions of its members. The relationship created is between the Council and the employer in each workplace. Neither the relationship nor the institution can overflow or outgrow the particular workplace for which the Council is established.

What are the objects of an employees' council? They are (we quote the White Paper draft bill):-

(a) The regulation of relations between employee or employees on the one hand and employer or employers on the other hand, or between employee or employees on the one hand and employee or employees on the other hand;

(b) the promotion and maintenance of effective participation of employees in the affairs of the undertaking;

(c) The representation of employee or employees in any industrial dispute or any matter connected thereto and

(d) the securing of the mutual co-operation of the employees and the employer in achieving industrial peace, improved working conditions, and greater efficiency and productivity in the undertaking and matters connected thereto.

Objects (a) and (c) above are precisely two of the four objects of a Trade Union, as defined in the Trade Union Ordinance. In respect of these objects the Council is substituted for the union in the undertaking.

The two other objects of a trade union, as defined in the Trade Union Ordinance, are:-

"(b) The imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business or…

The promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lockouts in any trade or industry or the provision of pay or other benefits for the members during a strike or lock-out.

These two objects, which are manifestly class struggle objects, have been substituted in the case of employees' councils by their direct opposite as is clear from (b) and (d) of a council's objects. Note in particular the words in (d): "the securing of the mutual co-operation of the employees and the employer in achieving industrial peace." In the language of the working class movement, these are manifestly class collaborationist objects. In other words, an employees' council is an organisation for class collaboration; a trade union is an organisation for class struggle.

This is made more manifest in the White paper Draft Bill by provisions regarding the relations to be maintained between the Council and the employer and the mode of conducting such relations. We quote:-

"The employer and the Council shall work together in a spirit of mutual trust."

"The employer and the Council shall refrain from doing any thing likely to imperil the efficiency and productivity of the undertaking."

"The employer and the Council shall discuss any disputed matters…… with a view to settlement."

"Shall," we may say is in law an imperative or enjoining word. It is as if you say, in common parlance, you must. You must work together... in ... mutual trust! You must refrain from doing

anything likely to imperil.... efficiency and productivity; and you must discuss any disputed matters .. . . with a view to settlement. You must do so - and not otherwise. Incidentally, a strike, of course imperils productivity and is likely to imperil efficiency. It is of course not a form of discussion,

The Minister may however argue that all this does not shut out the trade union, which exists independently of his proposed laws. It may and it may not: but there are four further sets of provision which serve to cut out the workmen's trade union or trade unions effectively.

The first set provides for Conciliation Committees in each under-taking: A conciliation Committee consists of employer's representatives and employees' representatives in equal numbers and a chairman appointed by agreement or by the Commissioner of Labour. Differences or disputes between employer and Council shall. be referred to a conciliation committee for decision. The "independent" Chairman will of course be the real deciding party.

Which brings us to a second set of provisions. They make settlements entered into by the Council with the employer and decisions of the Conciliation Committee "binding on the employer, the Council and the employers in the undertaking." The word is "shall."

Two more sets of provisions make assurance doubly assured. The first set provides that "where a Trade Union or an employee raises any industrial dispute directly with an employer, such employer shall refer such dispute to the Council," The Council may itself take up the demand for negotiation with the employer as set out above or may reject the demand as being "not well founded," informing the employer in writing accordingly. Whatever decision the Council takes, just like any settlement it makes or any decision a conciliation committee makes, is binding. The trade union which made the demand is simply ignored and cut out of the proceedings relating to its demand. What is more, the provision that gives legally binding force to the settlements and decisions of the council and to decisions of the conciliation committees shuts the trade union from recourse to the Industrial Disputes Act also. The union is left out in the cold and made irrelevant to the employment relation.

The draft law has added braces to its "binding" belt with a draconian set of provisions on strikes. It is prohibited and made illegal to strike -(a) while an industrial dispute is pending before an employees' council or a conciliation committee, or (b) with a view to procuring the alteration of any decision or settlement of an employees' council or any decision of a conciliation committee. Participation in such a strike, aiding or abetting such a strike and even assisting such a strike or strikes by gift of money or other valuable thing to a striker or any organisation to which he belongs is made an offence. Moreover, the right of strike breaking is given to the employer in the guise of giving the right of picketting to the workers and a meagre and ineffective right of "peaceful persuasion" at that. Scabbing is made legal for the first time in history. In addition and for good measure, go-slow and stay-in are made illegal.

Whatever the Minister may say about his future intentions the White Paper proposals effectively cut out the trade unions from the employment relation by shutting them out of the possibility of exercising their functions. To cut them out in this way is really no less than to cut them down. At best, the scheme ensures that the trade unions being functionless will wither away.

This is the machiavellian and literally devilish scheme which the Government contemplates fastening on the wage and salary workers in the public sector. If it is also intended to apply to them the provisions in the White Paper draft law which cut them off or narrow to the point of almost negating their right of access to the procedures and remedies and to the industrial courts and labour tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of their terms and conditions of employment, then, not only will the bulwark of the organised power of the corporation employees-their trade unions-be pushed aside and rendered power-less and useless, but the employees will also be handed over, bound hand and loot, to the mercy of their employers, namely, the Corporation bosses and their stooge agents.

The struggle against the white paper proposals thus is not yet over: it has only entered another phase. That phase, it should be realised has a somewhat different perspective from that of the struggle conducted so successfully hitherto. The aim of the working class and trade union movement, and indeed of the whole progressive movement, in relation to the corporations and undertakings in the public sector is self-management of all such corporations and undertakings.

In relation to the private sector, the aim is to take over to the public sector, that is to say, to nationalise, the major, especially the key undertakings. The small entrepreneur, the little man, will be helped and far from being threatened with nationalisation encouraged to grow and thrive. In either setting, public sector or private sector the right of the workers to unionise is fundamental and must be defended.

The difference of aims governs the demand we put forward at this stage too. We unrelentingly oppose the white paper proposals; but we also demand that the Public Corporation Boards and the management of the undertakings under the corporations be composed of 'employees' representatives and management representatives in equal number, and a chairman appointed by the Government. It is essential to carry forward the agitation and struggle already begun, strengthened by the successes already achieved. It will be time enough to analyse the new legislation when it is concretely proposed. In the meantime, we can rightly base our agitation on the proposals in the partly withdrawn white paper; for, the Minister has said in his statement to the N.S.A. that he will proceed in his legislation on the basis of the recommendations of the white paper.

Away with the Principles and Proposals of the infamous White Paper on Employment Relations!
Defend the Rights and Freedoms of the Public Sector Employees Against Renewed Government Onslaught!
Defend the Right to Independent Class Struggle Trade Unions Against All Class - Collaborationist Substitutes!
Defend the Right to Strike and the Right to Support Strikes!
Against Illegalisation of Stay-in and Go-Slow!
Defend the Right to Picket Against Giving Rights to Scabs!
Unite in struggle! Unite to further victories!

April 1978.