Betrayed – by the TGWU (continued)

Scan page 14

ensure that lic stayed sacked. Looking back, the accumulation of these forces made a successful struggle in his defence extremely difficult indeed This is not to say he was not defended in the discipline procedure. By all accounts David Buckle put a very good case at the final meeting, clearly establishing victimisation.

He could rest assured, of course, that however strongly he argued the case, BL would not change their mind. The sacking was a strategic decision taken at a very high level and, short of an all-out strike, they were determined to see it through.

Significantly Buckle had told Alan Thornett and the plant TGWU convenor Bob Fryer that he had been in touch with the Regional and National officers of the union "since he was first aware of BL's moves. There is no doabt that they were involyer in the subsequent tactical decisions.

At the extended plant conference - effectively the final appeal - Buckle concluded by registering a "failure to agree" with BL and giving them five days In this situation five days notice was a problem. In the present conditions in Cowley convenors are disciplined and victimised for calling mass meetings after the procedure is exhausted, let alone before.

It was very difficult for Bob. Fryer to call a mass meeting of the plant once the five days notice was given. Roy Fraser in the Body Plant, for example, was victimised for doing just that.

Faced with this, Fryer planned to go straight to the transport drivers and seek a. decision for strike action from the end of the five days notice. (Again it was very difficult for the drivers to strike in defiancę of Buckle's five days' notice given their vulnerability; the ruthless management they were dealing with, and the inevitable response of the TGWU, which would be to order them back to work until the five days were up).

He would then call a mass meeting of the plant as soon as the drivers were out and giving a lead.

Before Buckle left the plant after the final appeal he arranged to produce a letter for distribution on the _Canon plant explaining the situa-tion. When this arrived later that Friday alternoon, it revealed the next serious problem.

It said absolutely nothing to counter management mopaganda which was already circulating in the plant. It is worth quoting it in full:

"This letter is to advise you that at an Extended Plant Conference today - 12 November - a case was argued against the dismissal of Brother Thornett in respect of his failure to renew his HGV licence and other related matters.

"The Company refused to withdraw the dismissal notice and we registered a "failure to agree" and gave five days notice of possible industrial action.

"You will be kept informed of developments by. your Senior Steward and Shop Stewards."

This was serious. If there was to be a successful struggle, it needed the full time ofticial conducting the case to publicly argue it. This letter, which was the ideal~ opportunity, showed that he would not.

Something had to be done. Without a full statement from the trade union side, the workforce would only have the Company version and support would be destroyed.

To meet this situation a statement was produced over the weekend, defending Alan Thornett, under the name of the sub-committee of the TGWU stewards committee. It was pinned to Buckle's letter and distributed to the during the five days notice, (and towards the end of that five days, giving time for a Company propaganda buildup)...

Although when he put his request to management, through Bob Fryer, it was refused, it was plain that it would nct end there. It is fair to assume that the Thursday meeting decision had been taken high up in the TGWU and that BL would soon be prevailed upon to concede it.

The TGWU leadership appear to have decided that they must kill the drivers action before they came out. When Alan Thornett was vicwhich was what the Company needed.

On Tuesday morning Forster got the break he wanted. The Workers Revolutionary Party were on the gates distributing a leaflet with a photo of Alan Thornett. on the front and Karl Marx on the back.

It was headlined "All out strike now to reinstate Bro. Thornett". * It never attempted to afgue the case or relate to the situation. It was simply a political statement which ended:

"Nationalise the banks, the whole motor industry and all basic industries under workers: control without The leaflet had a serious negative impact on the plant. For the first time the right wing were able to divert from the issue itself and simply witch-hunt Alan Thornett as a Trotskyist.* On Tuesday Buckle made it clear he was opposed to a transport drivers strike, saying that the issue was "too big" for one section.

Later that day, Buckle, with Fryer, met management and again asked for mass meetings on Thursday to be preceded by a shop stewards meeting on Wednesday morning. Sure enough, this time management agreed to authorise a mass meeting

----- pull-quotes -----

Get Or