Britain's answer to Jimmy Hoffa: Alan Law and 'The Rule of Law' (continued)

Scan page 9

Hewlett: his scabbing rewarded with a full-time official's job UNION by hand to Alan Law. Four hours later, his daughter phoned to say that the room was no longer available.

Underestimating his opponents, Law assumed hat this would be enough o ensure that the meeting vould never take place. He vrote a letter to the memers of the Car Delivery Council and had it deliverid by the hand the followng morning.

The letter was a witchjunt, and began by referrag to 'the unofficial elelent amongst our Car Devery Organisation" It rent on: •'This body has been actig in a subversive fashion or a long time now, but it as been kept ineffective y the combined efforts of responsible people ithin the Branches. Now • opportunity has arisen ir them to come out into le open and show their He continued: i •"The membership at ‚utocar are being delibertely misled and used, and rill be cast aside when they ave served their purpose, ark my words"

Unfortunately for Law, hil Morris and Pat Healey ere not so easily taken in. hey had not trusted Law's rughter and had booked a icond venue in case ransport House was sudenly 'unavailable' The eeting had been attended ¡ all the members of the ar Delivery Council. Moreover, it had voted to ive full backing to the rike, and decided to proach Brian Mathers as gional secretary to urge at the strike be made ficial.

When no reply was reived, the secretary of the uncil, John Cassidy, teleloned to ask why. Law ve the answer - and it me as a considerable ock.

Cassidy was told that the uncil no longer existed. had apparentiy been denet since 1968.

Protests that Alan Law nself had only recently en corresponding offily with the Council cut ice. It had been retrotively disbanded. Law i that he was going to - a new body, called the wingham Car Delivery cuoch came in the

YOUR MAN

AT THE third week of the strike.

On February 4 the strike committee and the management met together with a conciliation officer. The strike committee pressed management for a return to the 'status quo' • Autocar's managing director Stanley Alton told them that the company would be happy to agree, but Alan Law had told them that if they did he would cut off their fuel supplies.

(Is Tony Corfield still prepared to tell us that Alan Law's actions were 'never arbitrary', or that his exercise of power was "ordered and rational', or that 'his hold over his members derived from mutual self-interest, not tyranny'?)

That was not all. On Wednesday February 6 the Autocar strikers picketed the Longbridge plant as a part of a day of protest. The picket was directed mainly against Law, with placards saying, 'Law's Wages Who Pays?' ', 'No Brother In Law' , and 'We Want Justice' Two hours later, three transporters from BRS, led by shop steward Geoffrey Hewlett, crossed their picket line. When challenged later, Hulett explained that BRS area manager Ron Halifax - a former TGWU steward and friend of Law's _ had threatened to sack anyone who refused to cross the picket line.

But Hewlett was not st innocent. He had been campaigning for months for clearance from region to set up his own T&G branch. This had been repeatedly refused.

Within days of his scaboing he was given permission to set up his own branch - the 5/809. (A few months later, he was made a full-time official and sent to Oxford. His first public statement was about the necessity to stamp out the 'extremists'.)

On February 11 Law stood on a miners' picket line at Saltley Coke Depot and told drivers: 'Cross this picket line and you may never work in Birmingham Two days later, Billy Birmingham and Stan Moore (the two officere voted out ai Autocar) crossed the Autocar picket line and returned to work. The same HELLO?. HOW'S IT GOING ALEX -KEEPING THOSE SOOTTISH DRIVERS IN ORDER?..

TECHOM BUT WHY ARE YOU IN A PHONE BOX ANYWAY? DON'T TELL ME YOU'RE PICKETING!!!

of! ComE oN Apte HEY! evening, BP tanker drivers were instructed by Law to cross the picket line.

It emerged that Law had telephoned the BP depot at Kingsbury and instructed T&G branch secretary Emrys Jones and his shop stewards personally to take tankers and drive through the line.

Brian Mathers, as regional secretary, then ordered the Autocar strikers back to work.

Law had smashed the strike and achieved his objective. Billy Birmingham and Stan Moore were immediately reinstalled by Law as secretary and chairman of the Autocar branch.

On February 19, some very bitter victimised men from Autocar demonstrated outside the Midlands Regional office of the T&G. Their placards read: 'TGWU - The Union That Gets Its Members Sacked' and The Great TGWU Conspiracy' Law agreed to see them. He handed around a tray of lamb chops, a bottle of scotch, and three bottles of rum, and paid them £10 each. Needless to say, they remained angry and bitter.

Tony Corfield had no right to leave out this disgraceful episode when passing judgment on Alan Law. But that is not all.

Ballot-rigging

In November 1977 Alan Law was caught baliotrigging on a massive scale. He filled in almost all the 4,500 ballot papers issued to the branch himself, tor each of three elections: national trade group committee, regional committee, and General Executive Council.

This was revealed by scrutineers in November 1977, who disqualified the branch returns for what they bashfully described as 'block voting'. The right word is, of course, ballot-rigging • - a criminal offence.

Tony Corfield says that Law should not have been surprised that the 'regional authorities' took the matter seriously. In fact they did nothing of the sort.

At that time they took no further action at all. It took two angry but misguided militants, who -after months of frustration trying to get it raised FINE THANKS ALAN. HOW'S LIFE IN SIRMINGHAM ACTUALLY WE DID HAVE A WEE SPOT OF BOTHER.

JAN 1314, WELL ACTUALLY-ER-THERE'S BEEN A BIT OF A LOCK-OUT DOWN HERE within the union - made a formal complaint to the police, to bring it to the notice of the membership.

Given the urgent need for democratic reforms inside the TGWU, not least of the ballot procedure, Tony Corfield does no service by treating the episode lightly. He assesses branch opinion as not regarding the ballot-rigging as a serious offence, and points to the fact that the same candidates were elected on a re-run ballot.

Tony Corfield should have made it clear that this is beside the point. Members are supposed to fill in the ballot papers themselves. In fact Tony Corfield's assessment of opinion appears to be wrong, since a meeting of 500 5/35 members demanded a full regional inquiry into the incident - which was refused.

Alan Law himself was absolutely unrepentant. He simply said he had not had time to send out the ballot papers (despite being a full time official, with a fulltime staff, doing a lay officer's job and getting a lay officer's administration allowance). He said he would do the same again in the same circumstances.

This is way out of step with Tony Corfield's general assessment of Law. In fact he quotes from article Law wrote in the T&G journal Highway in March 1977.

''Too many people allow too many other people to make decisions their behalf (!), without wanting their own voice to be heard, without demanding their rights to be heard, without insisting that their points of view be taken into consideration" . So runs part of this quote which, says Tony Corfield, "most fully expresses" the outlook of Alan Law, who fills in other people's ballot papers without their knowledge and casts their votes for them!

I can only say about this that either Tony Corfield doesn't take his assessment of Alan Law seriously, or he doesn't take ballot-rigging seriously, since the two do not add up.

Apart from re-running the ballot, the Regional Committee decided to remove Law as branch secreI HEARD IMPATIENT-SO I TOLD 'EM THE DRIVERS WERE GETTING STRAIGHT NOT TO JUMP THE GUN, BUT ACCEPT THE $60 (OFFER...

JANUARY. 1 1343€ 7 8 9 10 7 121: 14T516171819 2! 22 23 24 28 29.30 "A LOCK-OUT! ..THAT'S BLOODY INGRATITUDE FROM THE MANAGEMENT AFTER ALL YOUR MODERATION!! tary and split the branch into four in order to break üp his power base. (They also got his agreement to retire at 60, a year or so later). That was enough for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then decided not to proceed with criminal charges.

This was all very well, but the 5/35 branch was not Law's property, to be broken up as a form of punishment. It was a large, active branch in its own right, with strength, organisation, and rights, quite independent of Alan Law. To break it up was to break up an effective fighting force and weaken Midlands haulage workers in face of the employers.

Law was absolutely cynical about the break-up of the branch which he had precipitated. In order to protect Law's reputation, the Region gave the reason for the break-up of the branch as Law's increasing deafness.

Bemused branch members could not understand why this incapacity had led to the break-up of the branch. It was months later when pressure revealed the real reason, ballot-rigging.

Right to meet

Months of campaigning, with Law in opposition to them, by members of the 5/35 branch, eventually established the right of the four branches to meet together once a month, although they remained constitutionally three branches. They continue that way today: still a strong, important branch, with monthly meetings of between two and three hundred, but seriously weakened by the actions of Alan One more example can usefully be given of Law's determination to defend his own power base - that is the national haulage strike which began in January 1979. It precipitated a major break between Law and the 5/35 branch.

A demand for £65 for 40 hours was advanced by a national road haulage conference. This threatened to override agreements which Law had in the Midlands, such as the Birmingham differential. More importantly, it trod on his patch. NO YOU FOOL IT'S ME WHOSE BEEN • THE MEMBERSHIP!!!

..NEXT THING I KNEW THEY WERE ALL OUT! I EVEN HAD TO CALL IN THE MORNING STAR TO GET ME OFF THE HOOK!

YES, I SAW YOUR DENIAL, ...VERY PROFESSIONAL 000° He was, therefore, unlike the 5/35 branch, completely opposed to it from the outset. On top of that, he feared that it could become a political confrontation with the Government, and he wanted nothing to do with that.

The strike went ahead as a solid national action. Law's reaction to the backing which the 5/35 leadership was giving to the strike was to negotiate a scandalous deal with the West Midlands Road Haulage Association, to the effect that he would keep the West Midlands drivers out of the strike while the employers would agree to match any increase gained at national level.

This deal was backed by Brian Mathers, Region 5's notorious regional secretary, cryptically referred to throughout the book as 'the regional authorities"

It caused a crisis in the strike nationally. It was a move that only a mind dominated by business unionism and devoid of any principle could have entered into.

To their great credit, the 5/35 leadership, whom Tony Corfield sees too much as a creation of and appendix of Alan Law, fought him all the way, along with other branches in the region.

Law's move created such bitterness that one branch occupied his office when 300C TRANSPORT HOUSE TEEP OUT they heard he would be meeting the West Midlands employers in it. Law had to switch the venue to a Birmingham hotel.

Mathers then intervened on behalf of Law, sending out in the post a direct appeal for a return to work in the West Midlands. This would be open scabbing on the national strike, which by this time was effectively confronting the Labour government over wage controls.

The tremendous strength of the strike, both nationally and in the West Midlands, meant that the treachery of Law and Mathers was doomed to failure. The drivers ignored the appeals, and remained militantly on strike.

Law, having lost the day, refused to take responsibility for the strike. It was taken over by the officer who was to replace him a iew months later when he retired.

Although Tony Corfield gives a full account of this period, he partly justifies Law's treacherous role. For him, Law was protecting conditions which existed in the West Midlands, where the union was strong enough to achieve what it wanted without a damaging strike.

Tony Corfield does no service to the trade union movement in making a folk hero out of Alan Law. The issues involved are too important for that.

Scan page 10

Some Labour activists argue that to boycott the 'register' established by this year's Labour Party conference is to use the democratic 'right Peace JOHN HARRIS of resistance' against a witch-hunt; others, that bad though the register is, democratic principles oblige us to comply with it. The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy is currently conducting a consultative ballot on whether to register. On this page we print Vladimir Derer and Pete Willsman's argument for registration; on the facing page, articles by Jon Lansman, Nigel Williamson, and Andy Harris against registration. The Derer/Willsman, Lansman and Williamson articles ar taken from the CLPD bulletin, Andy Harris's from London Labour Briefing. An article by John Bloxam of Socialist Organiser against registering was in SO 108 and also appears in the current CLPD Foot: outnumbered on the NEC by the extreme right wing standard. secure majority support for indeed. conservative and traditional agreeing with those de. acceptable.

Labour conference: only one of its policies interests the right wing CLPD has campaigned for conference sovereignty right from the start. It should therefore have no difficulty in deciding whether to comply with the conference decision endorsing the NEC's Register of Groups.

If it does not wish to lose its credibility, CLPD must comply. The constitutional changes for which CLPD campaigned - mandatory reselection, wider franchise in the election of Party leader the Manifesto - were all ways of bringing conference sovereignty nearer.

CLPD campaigns for conference sovereignty because it is the essential precondition if the Party is to regain its political effectiveness, its electoral credibility, and ultimately the chance to achieve a socialist Britain in the foreseeable future. • For the main cause of the problems the Party is experiencing at present is the structural separation of the Parliamentary Party from the Party in the country. This is why the Party tends to speak with two voices, why the policies agreed at conference are in conflict with those pursued by Labour governments, and why internal conflicts have become so pronounced in recent years.

These difficulties will be overcomt only when the sovereignty of conference is firmly established.

Even though some steps have already been taken towards the acceptance of the principle of conference sovereignty, ne Darue Is lar It- Latela from being won. Further advance, however, is not possible if those campaigning adopt a double Until recently it was only the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] which rejected conference decisions which it disapproved. It would be ironic if those who criticised the PLP because of this, now started to imitate it. If CLPD took up this position, its credibility would be completely undermined and the chances of making conference sovereignty a reality would become very slim A number of comrades on the CLPD Executive argue against CLPD applyme to be placed on the Register. These comrades are confusing two different issues. Me is the question of complying with majority decisions. The other is the question of In fact, CLPD's objective of establishing the supremacy of conference decisions never presupposed that these decisions would necessarily be right. Nor does it mean that those who do not agree with them should noi campaign against them. December bulletin.

Making conference deci- Party, using every availabl sions binding simply means constitutional means to that they must be complied with until they are overturn- these demands. ed. But they should only be opposed through constitu- based on the recognition tional channels, and should that at present the Labour not be defied. Party is the sole vehicle by So far as the conference which any advance towards decision on the Register is socialism can be made. Total concerned, there is of course acceptance of the Labour no disagreement. It was a Party framework, with all bad and dangerous decision, its restrictions as well as opand the sooner it is changed portunities, is therefore an the better. The division is absolute prerequisite. purely over the best method to do so.

Those who advocate a the reality of the relatively 'civil disobedience' campaign against the Register wish ist climate of opinion which CLPD to disobey a confer- is still widespread within the ence decision. Not only Party. Not only should the would this make nonsense of demands put torward be ac CLPD's efforts to achieve ceptable both to the Party conference sovereignty, but and trade union memberthe proposed course of ship, but also our campaignaction is also quite unlikely ing methods must be equally to achieve the desired objective. It ignores the experience of how mandatory re- rules must be scrupulously selection and the electoral respected. Any failure to college were won, and the meet these conditions mereManifesto reform very nearly ly guarantees loss of support. won.

These advances resulted registration, indeed any from a concentrated, system- departure from the previous atic, continuous and con- status quo, as an act of certed campaign within the betrayal. To become a registered soci branded wi Cain.

They se The CLPD strategy is ster as the course, and misrepresen paign agair Tendency 1 out.

This wa the issue co question wi Moral impe compromise however, cc This involves facing up to only admiss serious abı term objec imperative.

In any who have registration major issue ject the re Register ser written U1 gave when Above all, the existing Party. This "the policy of the Labc "Rules and It is do1 Some comrades present they signed they actuall the Party's then, shou! single out t over the Re an 'uncom that would bandment ‹ technical gr ed to apply One ca1 that they dr value on the ence of CLF Another is being CLPD's der ence soverei to the PLP and file. A: and file is cr ence soverei fact whethr not.

Prior to [Constituen ies| were in atory resele were unablı practice u contirmed t unsregarded, al provision: ialist' is to ith the mark e refusal to regionly honourable have consistently ted CLPD's camist the Militant Report as a sell1y of presenting infuses a political ith a moral one. eratives allow no In politics, impromise is not sible, but if one is out one's long tives, it is often case comrades turned the nonof CLPD into a because they restrictions of the em to forget the ndertaking they they joined the i was to accept ' and programme sur Party" and its Constitution" ubtful that when I this declaration ly agreed with all ; policies. Why, Id they wish to heir disagreement gister for making promising stand' lead to the disof CLPD on the ounds that it failfor registration? n only conclude o not place a high e continued existID. argument which dvanced is that nand for conferignty applies only and not the rank s far as the rank oncerned, conferignty is already a er we like it or 1980 most CLPs icy Labour Parti favour of mandection. Yet they e to put it into ntil conference the change in the 'ugh alicy deci2.221 , lis consututions - and the Register falls into this category -are rigidly enforced.

The "theoretical' side of this argument is based on the alleged limits of conterence sovereignty. Comrades who argue this line regard the rights of individuals and groups to campaign within the Party for whatever policy they choose as an inalienable right and one which is above any conference decision.

Comrades who put forward this point of view should really make up their minds whether they want conference sovereignty OI not. If conference is to be sovereign then it must be in a position to overrule the wishes of individual sections of the Party.

If they do not want it to be sovereign, then they are simply defending the present system of checks and balances which experience has discredited and which CLPD was specifically set up to do away with.

The samne comrades sometime suggest that CLPD is not really required to apply. This ignores the decision of conference on unaffiliated groups.

"(ii) All such groups must apply to... the National Executive Committee for registration."

*(vii) Any group found to be in breach of these rules should be given a period of no more than three months in which to put an end to such infringements...

"(vili) Individuals and groups... in breach of the constitution and Rules of the Party thereafter shall be liable to disciplinary action."

They have suggested that CLPD • will not fall foul of the rules because of the double standard adopted by the NEC. Militant will be disciplined but such organisations as Labour Movement for Europe will be able to operate with impunity even though they have been refused admission to the Register.

In fact, the actions of the new NEC leave very little me epimism and the restraining influence of Jim Mortimer and Michael Foot can hardly be relied on: their recommendations on the composition of NEC committees, for example, have all been overturned by the NEC.

To argue that CLPD will be treated with kid gloves is therefore just naive. In any case for CLPD to rely on exemption from the decision of conference seems to be quite inconsistent with the position normally adopted by CLPD, namely that conference decisions are made in order to be acted on.

The sole justification for boycotting the Register would be if a boycott would render it inoperative. Only it all unattiliated organisations, including the Tribune Group of Labour MPs, took part in the boycott would this tactic carry any weight.

As it is, Tribune as well as other unaffiliated organisations have already applied to be included in the Register, and were founa to be eligible. The only ones likely to continue with the boycott tactic will be some of the groups who like to: pass themselves off as 'hard left'.

We understand that the deadline for applying for registration is 'at the end of 1982'. Any organisation which fails to meet it, or any subsequent deadline, may be deemed to have not met the constitutional requirements of making an application and made themselves ineligible.

So long as we believe that the Labour Party is the only framework within which the struggle for socialism can be effectively pursued at present, comrades who wish to take advantage of Labour Party membership cannot at the same time try to "contract out' of its disadvantagSuch an attempt to have their cake eat it migh preserve their "purity onlv at the expense of then political relevance.

Rejection of the Register - particularly when it is based on the denunciation of the arbitrary powers given to the NEC, and if coupled with a positive alternative to be pursued through normal constitutional channels - is a demand which is in principle acceptable to the Labour Party as a whole.

A civil disobedience' campaign is clearly not. • The latter may find support at best among a minority of CLPs, but would be overwhelmingly rejected by the trade unions. Those who ignore this merely show that they have failed to adjust to the milieu in which they hope to exert influence.

In some cases this is because though old hands in sectarian activities, they are still very new to Labour Party ways and have tailed to draw the necessary conclusions from their unsuceessful past political experience. Others, despite possibly many years of Labour Party membership, have never overcome the weaknesses of a basically individualistic approach.

Excessive individualism has always been tolerated by the Party Establishment', but has pever proved effective against it. No doubt the Establishment realises that 'radical' posturing represents no real threat.

The disagreement within CLPD over how to fight the Register is neither accidental nor is it an isolated instance. It is symptomatic of the difference of approach which bruadly divides most of the comrades who 'founded' CLPD or joined it during its cary stages, trom those who did so mainly once CLPD provea to be successIul.

During the period of CLPD's advance these comrades were a great asset. Unfortunately they seem never to have accepted CLPD's strategy. Once the tide turned and the going became more difficult, these comrades failed appreciate that a tactic different from that used during the period of advance became necessary.

CLPD has no magic formula for achieving victory in every situation. Sometimes one can only concentrate on the consolidation of gains already achieved, and from time to time even a limited though orderly retreat may become necessary. Impatient for success, our critics have abandoned the traditional CLPD strategy and have opted for one of confrontation. This can only worsen the setbacks already suffered.

Those of us who continue to adhere to the strategy which produced recent democratic gains, will not allow ourselves to be diverted into courses of action which can onlv result in failure. Whatever the result of the ballot, and whatever the CLPD AGM may decide, we shall continue to stick to the strategy which will make further democratic and socialist advance possible.

STOP PRESS: At the meeting of the NEC's Organisation Committee on November 10 it was recognised that the legal points Militant raised had more substance than had been realised. However, this does not affect our arguments in favour of CLPD registering.

Militant's case against the NEC partly rests on the fact that they have applied for registration. Had the NEC proceeded with expulsions before giving Militant a chance to comply with the Register's requirements, it would have broken its own rules. Organisations which do not apply for registration will be in a less favourable position.

In any case the Register has to be defeated politically. Registration remains a precondition for waging an effective campaign against it.

Scan page 11

Organiser Ill, December 2, 1982.

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

THERE SHOULD BE A LAW OCCUPATION.