Brit
F tonstoKers struck in a de-

} Politica

F eno, Ut ai
3 “nines. Thetatt

a Shackles for lab

or in Britain

On March 18 over 3,000,000

On against the To:
tons mment’s Industrial Rels-

- This most vici
M anti-Ja vicious
i legislate’ anti-working class

represents British
i Part in the drive of
the Hoh to force politics to
trie Mm all capitalist coun-
siste .2° following article con-
Dhlet ot excerpts from a pam-

Y Bert Ramelson, expos-
Pamphi " uncing the Bill. The

: et was i
Communist issued by the

Britain: Party of Great

Th é
1979 ig pestrial Relations Bill
" e Most vicious piece of
latig a Motivated class legis-
Acts o Ince the Combination

It eee early 1700s.

Usiness paren framed by big
Daraller big business. It has
COuntry 4 €! in any capitalist
in fae the world other than
Spain Es fascist countries like
Sno att Greece, where there
that 4 aes at any pretense
to exist. Unions are allowed

tis
to Amact true that it is similar
Even B an trade union laws.
Union tay Hartley anti-trade
USA gv introduced in the
SWept thar® the hysteria that
McCarthy. Country during the
Pareq 4 Petiod are mild com-
this Tory pant is contained in

oy SU
On the au 1S not only an attack
<a € unions and militant

ually ;onists. It is aimed
People o¢ “ePrive the British
Malianaby Some of their basic
Such as ¢. CMocratic rights
*xDressic Feedom of speech and
demonstr, » and the right to
Tate and Organize in

Sup
foie Of their vie

lack mee involved in this at-
tion : ou Tights of the trade
0 exert € right df workers

erg Whetnessure On the employ-
plher mea. OY strike or any
threat 4 <2S, is a wide-ranging
‘atic tig € Many other demo-
in bitter a Won by the people
0 Centuries ees Over nearly
e@ Ne a
legisinte Teplaces all exist-
: ing ae Wrenched out of
+ ass 4 4Ss in thousands of
Utieg ~©S Over the past cen-

ll the
batleg "© Nights won in: these
have now become

part of custom and practise, as
important as the laws them-
selves, are to be erased as if
they never existed. The ONLY
rights which trade unions, trade
unionists and all citizens and
their organizations will have in
their relations and attitudes to
the employers, the government,
and the workers’ rights at work
will be those specifically men-
tioned in this anti-trade union,
anti-democratic piece of ruling-
class legislation — the proposed
Industrial Relations Act. ‘
The definition of an “unfair
industrial act” which becomes il-
legal and punishable by the law,

has been tightened up to extend .

not only to strikes, working to
rule, bans on overtime and go-
slows, but even to include steps
taken by anyone for the purpose
of providing financial support to
workers participating in an “un-
fair industriai action.”

Thus any person initiating or
even contributing to a collecting
sheet passed around to help
workers in dispute, and not in
receipt of strike pay, would him-
self become guilty of an offence
under the Act and liable to
heavy damages. (There follows
a detailed description of the
amounts of “compensation
awards” to employers — “fines”

in our language—to be imposed
on trade unions for breaches of
the Act. These include a fine of
almost $250,000 against such a
trade union having a member-
ship of 100,000 or more).

Twenty unions comprising
over 80% of all trade unionists
have a membership of over
100,000. It wouldn’t take many
breaches of this vindictive Bill
to bankrupt the bigger and most
financially sound of them. And
it is hard to imagine that any
union worthy of the name and
doing a job for its members
would not fall afoul of the law
daily, certainly several times a
week...

If we allow this Bill to reach
the Statute, Book it will be the
end of an era—the end of a
century’s existence of legal trade
unionism in Britain, in the coun-
try which gave birth to the trade
union movement. For over a
century, from the beginning of
the 19th to the first decade of
the 20th century the British
working class fought with every
means at its disposal, parlia-
mentary and above all extra-
parliamentary struggle, to
wrench out of the ruling class
the right to combine together in
unions and use their resulting
strength to defend and advance

: When the Tories ‘nationalize’

avin
Worn» . ao Ils-Royce for
€ title of the fol-

YOuncag 24 gover

ine “vernment’s an-
at mention of “buying
Rr ty Oil in Alberta in or.
¢ by 1S Compan 2
: Geen pany, own
a from ¢t@dian multi-million-
sec “ing taken over com-
a *. interests will
Natio Parallel wit ile
RoremmZation by ‘the: brag

™m
Tex of aa of Rolls-Royce Ltd
ae article follows:
g =
Wetman ty 24 the British

aby, ment
Ish announce i
Owned Ment of d the es

_4 new §state-
Ye (ig7poration, the Rolls.
Imited, which is

e art of the bank-
hatigeMPany jg, MONOPOLY. The
sional Y is to operate the
Ong, the te “ngineering — divi-
Ng ones of which

and submarine
. Femaining divisions

pt en Ver p
a

are expected to be offered to the
highest bidder and may well fall
into foreign hands.

Before having recourse to na-
tionalization, the government
tried to save the huge Rolls-
Royce monopoly from collapse.
In November last year a £42
million subsidy was granted the
company, but this only put off
the denouement. The immediate
cause of the bankruptcy is said
to have been a highly disad-
vantageous contract for the de-
velopment and manufacture of
a new type of aircraft engine for
the U.S. Lockheed Aircraft Cor-
poration. The commitment plac-
ed too heavy a strain on the
company‘s resources and early
in February it announced its In-
solvency.

At first glance the Heath gov-
ernment’s decision to national-
ize this leading British monopo-
ly might seem somewhat strange.
For the Tories have been press-

ing for the return to private

hands of the nationalized branch-
es of Britain’s economy. Actual-
ly, however, there is no change
of policy, for the Conservatives
have had recourse to national-
ization before this when private
capital has been in trouble. The
present Rolls-Royce operation
too is nothing but a means of
subsidizing private capitalists
at the expense of the British
taxpayer. The Tories make no
secret of their intention to re-
turn the company to its former
owners at the first opportunity

after it has been put back on

its feet.

The workers of Rolls-Royce
plants located in many parts of
the country are well aware of
the purpose of the government’s
move. They are opposed to na-

-tionalization in the interests of

the monopolies and are insist-
ing on the permanent transfer
to state control not only of all
the Rolls-Royce divisions but of
the entire aero-engine industry.

their interests against the rapa-
cious employers .. .

What is clear is that workers
will be robbed of this elemental
and fundamental function of a
trade union — the unfettered
right to combine and use com-
bined strength to compel the
bosses to yield to what workers
feel are their just demands.

This is spelt out clearly in the
so-called “pillars of wisdom”
which the Tory government de-
clared as not negotiable and as
the basis of the Bill.

e

First, it should be noted. that
the definition of a trade union
in existing law as two or more
persons combining to further
their trade union interests is the
foundation of the workers’ right
to strike or to take any other
industrial action. By repealing
the existing law and substituting
a new definition of a trade union
as “an organization of workers
which is for the time being regis-
tered with the Chief Registrar,”
it has in one blow made illegal
every strike or any other form
of industrial action not called
by a registered trade union, in
accordance with the crippling
restrictions of this Bill. What
this means is that over 95% of
industrial action that workers
have and are taking would be
illegal.

e

The second nail in the coffin
of trade unionism is the new
concept of “unfair industrial
acts.” Anyone committing an
“unfair industrial act” will be
guilty of an offence and liable to
heavy penalties as well as terms
of imprisonment.

The idea that someone, or any
organization, including a regis-
tered trade union, can be penal-
ized by courts for doing some-
thing “unfair” is a most danger-
ous innovation in our legal
system. It can very well be the
thin edge of the wedge. Today
it is introduced to punish work-
ers and trade unions. If the
Tories get away with it on the
industrial front, having estab-
lished a precedent, it could very
well be extended to other fields
tomorrow.

What is fair and unfair is a
class question. Workers don’t
need convincing that what is
“fair” for the bosses is “unfair”
for them.

It is this new concept of “un-
fair industrial action” which will

be used to shackle and make im-
potent the official trade union
movement, even those trade un-
ions registered in accordance
with the conditions laid down in
the Bill. Part two, Clause 6
makes it crystal clear that regis-
tered trade unions, not only
shop stewards and militants, are
bound hand and foot, and will be
absolutely impotent to do any-
thing for their members in cir-
cumstances which this Tory gov-
ernment considers “unfair”. . .
But even that is not all by
any means. The Minister will
also have the power to delay
any official strike or any other
action, or to call it off if action
has .already been started, for 60
days, if such action would
threaten health or the economy
of the country. In the modern
complex technological society
we live in, with all the intercon-

-nections between its various in-

dustrial branches, this really
means the power to delay any
large scale industrial action
whatsoever.

In addition to this two
months’ delay, the Minister
could, after the expiry of the
two months, delay action ‘for
another two months by the
simple device of expressing
doubts as to whether the work-
ers really wanted to take action,
and allegedly to find out if they
did, asking for a court order
that a ballot of the membership
should be held . . . And of
course it will be a government
institution which will draw up
the ballot and supervise it.

6

The third nail in the coffin of
free trade unionism is the pro-
vision for the regimenting of the
trade unions, for taking away
their right to make their own
rules.

By definition, dating back to
the 18th century, when trade
unions first began to evolve, a

trade union is a voluntary as-

sociation of workers deciding
for themselves the rules govern-
ing their organization, and de-
ciding for themselves how to
defend and advance the interests
of their members.

The Bill deprives the trade
unions of the right to remain
voluntary organizations framing
their own rules. It does so by re-
defining a trade union as one
registered with the Chief -Regis-
trar.

All questions concerning the
admission of members, disci-
pline, the conditions under
which strikes or any industrial
action can be taken, the method
of election of officers, and the
conduct of business, will no
longer be determined by the
members according to the rules
they decide upon, but must con-
form with the Registrar’s ideas
of what these rules should be.
And remember, the Registrar is
the nominee of this bosses’ gov-
ernment. If the rules don’t con-
form, a trade union cannot be
registered, and by definition can-
not be a trade union...

e

The iniquitous Bill is not only
aimed to cripple the unions’
ability to fight for higher wages
or better working conditions. It
is the key link in the Tories’
overall strategy aimed at at-
tacking the working class over
the entire front. The Tory strat-
egy is already becoming clear.
Its aim: to solve the deep crisis
that capitalist Britain finds itself
in at the expense of the working
people.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 1971—PAGE 7