What the Tebbit Law THE RULE OF

Scan page 13

"I use the word 'neuter' because I've been told I must not use the vernacular when describing what I'm doing to the unions."

Norman Tebbit in the Guardian, 25 November 1981 Why are the Tories introducing more anti-union legislation? Haven't they got the unions on the run already? Why alienate the union leaders and stir things up?

Isn't it true that even Michael Edwardes still relies on the cooperation of the union leaders to hold down the Leyland workers? Won't breaking up closed shops alienate even Boyd, Duffy and Chappie?

Aren't the Tories allowing class hatred to obscure their real interests? Isn't this Bill placing the power to go to law in the hands of backward employers and disgruntled individuals likely to precipitate an explosion outside the political control of big capital and the state?

Tebbit has not been introduced simply because Thatcher doesn't like trade unions or because Tebbit is a skinhead! It has to be related to the specific needs of Tory strategy itself, a product of the present necessities of capital accumulation.

Galvanise

The Tories came into office believing that by limiting the money supply, by cutting public expenditure, by reducing consumer spending, by allowing interest rates to rise and withdrawing from intervention in industry they would galvanise the bosses into facing "reality' and improve productivity. Increasing unemployment would dampen workers expectations * and weaken their bargaining power. Managements would resist wage claims because of the threat of bankruptcy. The inefficient would go to the wall and the overal average productivity would be jacked up.

Artificial restraints which interfere with the proper working of the market and enable workers to resist the rigours of economic policy such as trade unions and 'reasonable' levels of unemployment pay also require control. The central objecrive of the Employment Act was to weaken union organisation and its ability to interfere with the operation of the Thatcher strategy.

Yet the Thatcher strategy has met with only limited success. Her efforts to control the money supply, government spending and aid to industry have failed. Four million unemployed has led to deep political disillusionment.

Electorally

In this situation with time running out there is a need for new initiatives. Further moves against the unions are seen as attractive. They are perceived as elec::ly popular. The tame ==-* i the unions 1o D 45 2 siss -te: supine leadership, and to remove What is still an important barrier to reducing wages and savaging conditions and produce a lasting transformation in the nature of British trade unionism.

Many capitalists are hesitant about these measures. But Thatcher believes that if an explosion comes she can win it. Thatcher and Tebbit possess a relative autonomy from the immediate interests of particular sections of capital.

Donkeys

They pioneers attempting to secure the general social, political and economic conditions for a capitalist revival. They are impressed by the weaknesses of the workers' movement in particular the docility of the donkeys who lead it.

They are attempting to galvanise more cautious sections of capital into accepting their leadership in a sharper frontal assault, applying fire rather than syrup to the union tops.

Incorporationist strategies, with bribes to union leaders and 100% unionism, they would argue, may useful with minimal unemployment. But these are not the tactics required when you have four million unemloyed. Now is the time ic cick union leaders into disci plining their members and weaken their membership.

They may be wrong. Their strategy may fail. In the end it all depends on our response.

major aim of the Tebbit Bill is to outlaw certain kinds of industrial action. If workers accept this then they will be fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

Solidarity

Few disputes can be won today by workers acting alone. In particular Tebbit attempts to outlaw solidarity action. The new proposals are built carefully onto those in Prior's 1980 Employment Act.

When workers go on strike they often break the law as developed by the judges - the common law. The most important common law wrong today is inducing a breach of contract. they break their contracts er, When workers employment. Rather than suing hundreds or thousands it is far more convenient if you can locate those responsible, those who may be able to bring the action to an end.

If a shop stewards committee union executive call their members out on strike then they can be said to be inducing them to break their contracts employment. By doing this ches may also be vid to be FEE I Meh If you black work from a particular employer OI successfully urge a worker to cross a picket line then yUl too may be inducing breaches of contract. But you might point out there is often no inducement. Workers themselves decide whether or not they want to strike or turn around at a picket line.

These kind of arguments will generally be dealt with at a full trial. But that may take 6 or 9 months. All the cases that have come up in the last few years involving industrial action are cases where the employer is seeking an interim injunction.an order that the industrial action should be suspended until the full case can be heard.

At this hearing the court will not ask the employer to prove his case to the hilt. They will simply ask: 'Has he got some kind of case?' If so, they will generally find that the balance of convenience is such that an injunetion should be granted.

You can easily go on strike again in six months. If no injunction is granted, then your employer may lose thousands of pounds' worth of production over something which later found to be illegal. This argument, of course, ignores the realities of union action and shows how judicial bias operates.

Legal

Almost every strike opens workers to these legal liabilities. If things were left at that unions would be unable to operate at all. Parliament has therefore said in the past that unions would be given immunity from these laws in certain circumstances where the action was taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

For áction to be a trade dispute in the past it had to be connected with one of a detailed list of matters: terms and conditions of employment, physical conditions of work, engagement OI non engagement workers, discipline, distribution of work, union rights, negotiating machinery.

O: WENDY MUSTILL dispute...

The Tories have tried to change the law here in two main ways. First of all, Prior's Employment Act made it unlawful for you to interfere with the commercial contracts of an employer who was not party to your original dispute through interfering with the employment contract of his employees unless:

a) that employer is a customer or supplier of your employer;

b) your purpose is to disrupt the supply of goods;

c) your action is likely to achieve that purpose.

If you are on strike and you ask the workers at a direct supplier of your employer to black deliveries then you are okay as long as your purpose is to win your dispute and your action is likely to achieve that purpose. This means, however, that all action outside your direct employer will be open to decision by judges as to whether or not its purpose is to win the dispute and it is likely to achieve that purpose.

Blacking

If they think that the answer is 'no' ans eripose for example is Tenuroose to punish your employer, then it will be unlawful.

If, however, you asked for blacking of employees of an employer who supplied components to • your employer's supplier, perhaps because you could not get support at the direct supplier, then that would not be covered.

The problems can be seen from a case in 1979. The NUJ on strike against the Newspaper Society, the Provincial Employers Assocation, asked their members at the Press Association to black copy to local papers. To further escalate the dispute they asked members on national newspapers not to handle copy from the Press Association.

Under Tebbit the action on the nationals would be automatically illegal. The action at the Press Association would be subject to the tests of purpose and likelihood of success.

In this case the Court of Appeal said the purpose was not to win the dispute but to raise the morale of the strikers and was not likely to achieve the purpose of winning the dispute anyway. This shows the way judges will deal with future cases.

Tebbit now goes further than Prior and attempts to make all sorts of industrial Tehhit would.. action illegal by changing the definition of a trade dispute. The detinition will be restricted so that action should relate wholly or mainly to a trade dispute rather than as now simply be connected with it.

Again this gives the judges tremendous discretion. In 1980, for example, they decided that instructions to strike on May 14 against Prior's Bill was not even connected with a trade dispute. Tebbit gave the example of strikes against the privatisation of gas showrooms as not being wholly or mainly related to a trade dispute and the withdrawal of rate opposition to cuts in services could be outlawed as partly political.

The one-day strike against fare increases on London Transport would also have been open to injunctions as would any strike which has some element of anti-government content.

Under Tebbit's law it will be illegal to take action in support of workers in other countries unless your own terms and conditions are