A partial victory has been won by the workem at Ideal Casements (Reading) Ltd., in a lest case on the use of the Industrial RelaBoos Act. This was the first time the Act had been used against individual workers. Mr James Wallace, Chairman of the Company. had alleged that the three shop stewards in the factory were engaging in an "unfair Industrial Practice", But despite the fact that the Industrial Relations Court (I.R.C.) upheld Wallace's allegations, he was forced to back down the following day after 11 hours of talks.
BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE Workers at Ideal Casements have had a lot of trouble with management over the last six months. Last August they submitted'a claim, the main item of which was a 15 per cent wage demand. Management refused to negotiate, so an overtime ban was imposed. Management then sacked 12 men (claiming they were 'redundant) and all 550 men came out on strike. They demanded both the re-instatement of these men and the settement of their full claim (for further analysis see The Red Mole 301.
The strike was ended by a settlement which re-instated the sacked men but only gave an "interim" pay rise of 50p per week. A full "review of wages" was to follow at the end of November. Because the Union negotiators fell for these delaying tactics by the management, a certain disillusionment with the Union set in. This undoubtedly became a factor in the ensuing events.
For at the end of November, management, relying on it being too near Christmas for the workers to mobilise for a strike, played for even more time. They offered a further 50 p "interim' pay rise with negotiations for a full settlement to follow "at the end of February". This was rejected by the most militant sections of the factory but no action could be taken Safely. Then at Christmas the manag et added insult to injury by trying to bre part of their own interim agreement over Boliday pay. The Union threatened Court action to force them to honour it! Once Christmas was over, the Union members began seriously to look to their defence. In order to maintain the Union's credibility (and even its membership) in the factory, it had to be seen to stand up to management. The first step was unilaterally to end the working agreements then in existence in the two most militant sections of the works, together with all the personal contracts of service. Wallace replied with vague threats of using the Industrial Relations Act and gave every employee a copy of the Department of Employment's condensed version.
With this intimidation and still no new negotiations, the Union then gave notice of terminating its Procedural Agreement with the company. They did this on February 25th, just in time to prevent it from becoming a "legally binding agreement", with the coming into full force of the Industrial Relations Act, on February 28th.
Wallace replied by saying that with the termination of the Procedural Agreement he no longer recognired the Union or its shop stewards. He also annou inced that he was referring the matter to the Department of Employment, Faced with such utter intransigence, the shop stewards had no choice but to pre notice of strike action. The strike was to begin on 20thMarch.
WALLACE USES THE ACT At this point Wallace asked the N.I.R.C. for a restraining order against the three men, preventing them from calling the strike. Despite criticising Wallace's tactics as "unhelpful" (t) and "legalistic", the court granted this injunction on the grounds that Wallace had referred the question of recognition to the Department of Employment. For Section 54 of the Act makes it an "unfair industrial practice" to organise or threaten to organise a strike while settlement of a question is "pending"
The Court arranged for the two sides to meet the next day under Department of Employment chairmanship. At this meeting, which lasted 11 hours, Wallace was at last forced to back down in the face of the complete determination of the Union negotiators. Clearly he was under pressure from the N.I.R.C. not to press the matter through the Court; and by now, through its renewed militancy the Union had regained much of its lost position. There was complete solidarity amongst the workers. Everyone knew that if a satisfactory conclusion was not reached, 550 workers in a small factory would have defied the Act by striking and everyone knew that if that had happened, then trade union militants all over the country would have had a focus around which to rally opposition to the Act. Wallace therefore was forced to agree to:
Recognise the Union.
- Abandon his plans for non-Union Joint Consultative Committees. - Start negotiations on a new Procedural Agreement (to be completed by 31st March) with the old agreement in force in the meantime.
Withdraw his N..R.C. action.
This case illustrates one particularly dangerous facet of the Industrial Relations Act. Although on this occas on the relationship of class forces prevented it from ng fully implemented, it is now clear that any employer can make use of the Act to make it illegal for his workers to take strike action during the re-negotiation of a procedure agreement.
These events show the way in which the new "Industrial Relations' machinery works-to the advantage of management. But two further points must be made here. The first is that, in the negotiations conducted after the Court ruling, the strength and determination of the workers was decisive in securing the gains that were made. Secondly, the attitude of the Court chairman to Wallace clearly demonstrated that the Industrial Relations Act was not legislated to sort out relatively minor industrial disputes such as the one at Ideal, but to deal with whole sections of the working class which the ruling class needs to defeat. Ideal Casements may have been an important test case in legal terms (and of course for those involved in the dispute), but the real struggles are yet to come.
- Dave Bryant - Lawrie White