[Class interest and the "law of the la…]

Scan page 8

Class interest and the "law of the la Lord Halsbury - central figure in the historic Osborne judgement of 1909 The defeat of the General Strike was followed by the 1927 Trades Dispu ATTEMPTS to weaken the labour movement by using the law to curb the political activity of trade unions are nothing new. Norman Tebbit's attempt to make it more difficult for the unions to finance the Labour Party is merely the latest offensive in a war that the Tories have pursued relentlessly since the dawn of independent Labour representation in Parliament.

Trade unions have financed parliamentary representation since 1874 when two miners' leaders, Thomas Burt and Alexander McDonald entered the Commons, on the Liberal ticket. That the unions should link themselves with the more civilised party of capital was viewed with condign complacency by the state.

A party pledged to the interests of Labour was a completely different proposition.

Time and again they have attempted to forbid or make it difficult for the unions to influence their own political party.

After the establishment of the Labour Representation 'Committee (LRC) in 1900 - which was the beginning of the Labour combination whether temporary or permanent for regulating the relations between workmen and masters or between workmen and workmen... or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business." Unions could, if they wished, register under these acts, receiving in return minor legal advantages.

In 1904, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Socieites said in his Annual Report, "As many trade unions are seeking to include in their objects such extraneous matters as the promotion of Labour Representation in Parliament and in other elected bodies, I have found it necessary to point out that such matters are not within the definition of a trade union contained in Section 16 of the Trade Union Act of 1876."

This straw in the wind was soon tested in the courts. Steele was a member of the South This straw in the wind was soon tested in the courts. Steele, a member of the South Wales Miners Federation, was disgruntled because his union, after a favourable ballot, had sét up a political fund to be financed by a compulsory levy. Steele objected to being forced to pay and went to court to get an injunction declaring that parliamentary representation was outside the definition of a union in the 1876 Act and therefore illegal.

The judge threw out the case.

But the anti-union forces were not deterred. The Taff Vale judgement of 1901 had made unions financially liable for any damage inflicted on an employer during a strike. The 1906 Act reversed Taff Vale and gave unions some basic protections. This fuelled the flames of reaction, particularly amongst outraged lawyers and judges.

Forerunners of the National Association for Freedom such as the Anti-Socialist Union flourished. W.V. Osborne, a member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (ASRS) (the union which had been brought to court in the Taff Vale case) was a moving force in the Trade Union' Political Freedom League.

•Osborne went to court asking for a declaration that ASRS rules committing parliamentary representation of the union in advance to accept the Labour Party whip were invalid. He lost his case but the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords too found against the union.

Overruled

The decision in the Steele case was overruled. Against the vast majority of previous and future legal precedents, the Law Lords had decided that a union was a corporation and that as the statutory objectives of a union in the 1876 Act did not specifically mention political objectives, unions could not spend money on them. Osborne, who was 'liberally financed from capitalist sources' (according to the Webbs in their 'History of Trade Unionism') had pulled it off. Trade unions could no longer finance the Labour Party.

The Webbs describe what happened next:

"Up and down the country, discontented or venal trade unionists were sought out by solicitors and others acting for the employers; and were induced to lend their names to proceedings for injunctions against their own unions." Injunctions barred unions from contributing "to the Labour Party of to any other bodies or persons for the purpose of securing or maintaining parliamentary representation even if there was no connection with a political party."

Within 12 months of the House of Lords judgement in 1909, 25 unions had legal orders against them which gives you some idea of the likely impact of any legislation today.

The union leaders made the usual speeches about becoming martyrs, being lodged in Newgate Gaol and about consuming vast quantities of prison gruel. But the court orders were accepted. Recourse was had to fund raising by voluntary means and to political pressure exerted on the Liberal Government to reverše the Osborne judgement as it had overturned Taff Vale. The Parliamentary Labour Party had close relations with the Liberals.

An important point to emphasise today is that the campaign that the labour movement waged for the complete reversal of the Osborne judgement. In other words, they argued that there should be no law governing the issue of political contributions. If unions wished to make it compulsory and not allow members to contract out, that was up to them.

Even the Liberal Lord Chancellor argued that he couldn't see 'what considerations of morals or policy • ought to prevent trade unions from making it a condition of membership that members will subscribe for political purposes always supposing that they become members with knowledge of the terms upon which they have joined."

This was a minority view in the Cabinet, however, and when a bill was introduced in May 1911 it proposed that a union wishing • to pursue political objectives must first hoid a ballot of the membership. With a favourable result they could then adopt rules to set up a political fund but these rules would have to provide that members would be entitled to opt out of a political levy and were not to be discriminated against for so doing.

Rights

The unions and the Labour Party, pointing out that they were only asking for the same rights as applied to companies which did not have to give minority rights to shareholders, refused to support the bill unless the opting out clauses were withdrawn.

As J.R. Clynes commented, "We are told that men have consciences. I have yet to find the man who has a conscientious objection to receiving any of the benefits which our political activities secure to him. If a man receives these benefits arising from the political activities of trade unions on what principle can you say that these men shall escape paying for them."

The Bill was withdrawn but its successor was little different. The Labour leadership decided to accept it as better than nothing.

The 1913 Trade Union Act which was the result settled nothing as far as the Conservatives were concerned. They had bitterly opposed any reversal of Osborne. During the early '20s, several Tory MPs introduced private members' Bills aimed at resurrecting it. The rhetoric as today was in terms of "the rights of the individual" "intimidation" and 'the overwhelming power of the trade From the Tories more paternalistic wing came more frank analyses. One Cabinet minister cruelly undercutting the rhetoric argued "The real point which we have to decide is this. Do we wish to attack trade unions as such or do we not? ... the major part of the outcry against the political levy is not motivated by a burning indignation for the trade unionist who is forced to subscribe to the furtherance of political, principles which he abhors. It is based on a desire to hit the socialist party through their pocket. What I submit is that at least we should not delude ourselves as to our intentions."

Atter the defeat of the 1926 General Strike, the ascéndent Tory Right were able to have their way over this issue despite opposition. Again, the real point of the exercise was laid bare by McNamara, the Minister of Labour. "They will believe and