ballot and the situation following it.
What did the NEC decide 1o de in the light of the result of the ballot?
Our priority now changes to the question of the sackworkers Immingham, South Wales and Scotland We have to accept as crecolve committee that this is the business of the entire memoers up the union. You can't talk dooul une mme who have been dismissed for carryIng out lne poncy or lnel annual general meeting in the valletcis happens over driver-only operation.
wnal we nave lo now is to go to the British Railways board and make that ertectly clear them. WA't HUL going over there with our heads hung low because of ballot that was on the imposition driver-only operation. The ballgame is now complete v ditterent. The ISUCOW IS about workers victimised for car rying out union policy. We are going to ask the board in mediataty wise ail the immediately with comuoes unev na oerore them. CVCTY single of If they do not they will viewed GEOFF REVELL, a member of the executive of the NUR, for his view of the outcome of the strike find themselves in further conflict with this union.
Do you think it's likely that local areas regions of the NUR will continue to take action in defence YCLISeE workers?
wollld hone that worker, wherever they are, will allow their commader to be sacked for carrying vut inc poncies or lnel ulci.
vo yo ulllk ulc Gecislon of the NUR AGM to have the ballot and comply with the Tory Trade Union laws was a mistake? A lot of was right ue ller kenoro gu for a ballot, and that the NUR was wrong to decide to take this issue to a ballot in the first place?
The AGM delegates were mistaken in belief inat inev could conduct a ballot without the kind of interference from manage ment that we've had in this The people who were sacked dismissed. in their letters had the very Salllc appeared on the ballot paper are in breach of your contract of employment'. The Jimmy Knapp question on the ballot was obviously designed to terrify them from taking action.
British Rail had a roll, ing programme as well. They didn't sack everyone dE OIe Inl ocolland ana South Wales they gave them conse their position. They left it for another week ocrore they went for Immingham.
One of the reasons for bringing the ballot forward was to interfere with the strategy of the British Rail Board - which was almost daily putting further pressure on our members. Can I return to the question that we asked before. Do NUR'AGM decision to the think that the cept the imposition of the Trade Union laws and go for this ballot as a way ol fighting to defend guards' jobs was the wrong strategy to adopt?
Yes. For the reasons l've outlined. I think they were the bosses would allow the ballot place without interference. But on top of that you have io consider that the ecutive committee had called a strike on driver only operation at least per cent of our membership would have respondto that. , 1 happen to believe that it would have been day one we would had more than 48 per cent.
Those people respon ding would have built up a momentum. Unions don't have the kind of membership ie e ouarle ang blow whistle everyone it going to go out. That kind oscioite reasons that are obvious. JuST ist't there anvmere But we couid have built on ine response io strike action with far more than we wolte have been able to bring
Socialist Action 6 September 1985
----- pull-quotes -----
NUR militants are saying that Scargill