TUC suspend EETPU at last: the enemy within is nearly out!
Labour Briefing1980sTranscribed by hand from the printed page.
There is a misconception perpetrated in the media that the reason the EETPU face suspension from the TUC is its involvement in single-union no-strike deals.
In fact, the right wing mavericks face suspension for using particular single union deals to destroy existing trade union structures and to poach other unions' members in breach of the Bridlington agreement.
The EETPU refuses to accept a TUC directive requiring them to withdraw from two such deals — one signed with the Japanese electronics firm Orion near Port Talbot and the other with the haulage firm Cristian Salvensen, based in Warrington. Both these deals would involve members of other unions being forced to join the EETPU.
The Bridlington agreement was adopted by the TUC in 1939 and is designed to control inter-union membership wars. Under its terms, the transfer of members from one union to another can only take place with the agreement of both unions concerned.
Since then, Bridlington has been central to the functioning of the TUC and has been used as a matter of course by TUC unions to settle inter-union disputes and to recover members poached by other unions.
In fact the EETPU has used Bridlington to claim members back many times. The most famous recent case was Sean Gerhaty and the Fleet Street electricians, who tried to leave the EETPU and join SOGAT in 1982, after they were refused the right to take solidarity action in support of the NHS workers).
At Orion Electronics the TGWU had recruited 38 workers out of a workforce of 100. They have already applied to management for recognition when the EETPU signed a single-union agreement in return for a no-strike clause.
No one in the workforce was involved and it was signed over the head of the TGWU. Those workers who signed up for the TGWU are now required by the company to join the EETPU.
In the case of Salvensen, the whole workforce was unionised — into TGWU, GMB, and USDAW branches — when the EETPU signed single-union deals with management covering two Salvensen depots.
The issue of single union deals has been the subject of much discussion in the TUC. Norman Willis directly supported the single union no-strike deal negotiated by the AEU at Dundee and made his famous trip to Detroit to plead with Ford management to accept it.
There is therefore no opposition from him — or the TUC hierarchy — to single union deals in principle.
At the same time the TUC Special Review Body has been trying to find a formula to take the heat out of the situation. They have made the distinction between "greenfield" sites, where there is as yet no workforce, and existing sites where workers and other unions are already involved.
They have now produced a code of practice (after a long wrangle over whether it should be advisory or mandatory) which will be put to TUC Congress in October. This code will not, however, resolve the basic problem.
The term "single union deals" as used in the present debate does not refer tc workplaces or industries in which the workers were all originally recruited by a single union, or where there have been amalgamations over a period of time — a situation which is generally a positive advantage for the workers.
In this case, the union convinces the workforce to join and then concludes a deal with management to recognise it as the single representative union in the workplace.
Agreement
What is at issue now is the type of agreement negotiated via so-called "beauty contests" between competing unions with the workforce (which may or may not exist at the time) completely excluded from deciding who represents them.
Here, the union offers concessions to management to recognise it as the single union; thereafter, the workers recruited have no choice but to join it.
There is some hypocrisy on the part of some of those attacking Hammond. In his pamphlet Hammond, with some justification, complains that unions criticising him have themselves entered ito identical arrangements. He cites six examples involving the TGWU, eight involving the GMB, and five involving the AEU.
The fact that the EETPU's suspension and possible expulsion arises from a violation of Bridlington (rather than the single union stitch-ups) does not make it any the less significant. Indeed, the EETPU should have been expelled for its role at Wapping.
Once expelled (rather than suspended) it will not only be outside the TUC but outside the Bridlington agreement. Other unions will then be free to recruit EETPU members — and they should take full advantage of this freedom.
A recent conference of 150 militants from the EETPU, organised by the EETPU broad left grouping Flashlight, decided to fight for a "no" vote in the ballot currently being conducted to endorse Hamond's position. This is an important first step, but the key resolution declared:
"If the Leadership of the EETPU presists in pursuing a policy of splitting the TUC and setting up a rival organisation then we will seek to find ways and means of remaining within the TUC as an organised block."
Militants
In other words, militants in the EETPU will resign and take groups of members into other TUC unions, some of which have already begun to make appropriate arrangements. Some unions have considered establishing special branches for ex-members of the EETPU which (theoretically anyway) could be wound up if the EETPU found its way back into the TUC — possibly through merger with the AEU.
In reality, the situation will be more complicated. Sections of the EETPU will join other TUC unions organised in the same workplace. Detailed arrangements will have to follow actual practice.
A further suggestion coming out of the Flashlight conference was that EETPU members wishing to stay inside the TUC band together to form a new union which could apply for TUC recognition.
Incidentally, the Stalinists were split at the Flashlight conference. The CPGB argued that it would be wrong to leave the EETPU whilst the Morning Star people argued that it was necessary. Some said they could and would bring out blocks of membership into other unions.
Now that the EETPU has been suspended, the question of the union's affiliation to the Labour Party is on the agenda. If the EETPU is expelled it cannot remain affiliated to the Labour Party — which invites affiliates from TUC-recognised unions.
The problem will be that Kinnock's Leadership will not want to get rid of the EETPU. They are loyal supporters of the right wing in policy terms; and in terms of MPs. Many right wing MPs rely on votes from local right wingers who find their way into the EETPU and from their onto GCs to win their reselections. The new procedures may make life more comfortable for right wing MPs — but can they afford to lose these extra votes?
Commitment
Labour Party members should not hesitate to push for a firm commitment for the Labour Party to derecognise the EETPU if it is expelled from the TUC. Activists can start preparing now, with resolutions to establish CLP positions, with an instruction that officers should write in to Walworth Road immediately the expulsion is announced.
The subject is worth considering for amendments to Labour Party Conference resolutions. There will also need to be a campaign to send emergency resolutions to Conference.
We did not admit the scab UDM into the Labour Party; there is no earthly reason why the bosses' EETPU should remain.