the reality of the congress itself was very different.
resolutions and ammendments There was no crisis atmosphere whatever.
being stitched up.
cil and the AUEW executive.
1985, Blackpool. trast between hanger presentation by the media and the reality of the sessions in the north west's most famous holiday resort couldn't have been starker.
While Newsnight's Vincent Hanna agonised in the yer of the Imperial Hot nd breakfast TV crew lurk corridors, unconcerned in their red-plush history.
had vul funds We've SLIIKC for six take the argue that vote years had The not only listened to also linked national rules in constitution which had That final judgement, he hadn't heard the case for and against: it was an interim judgement designed to destroy the national union's case and to undermine the strike itself.
When the union by a democratic deicision refused to describe the strike as unofficial, because was Lies rule and constitution, it was declared that the union was in contempt, and the funds of the were questrated. THE MEDIA presentation of the TUC congress was dominated by the 'drama' of the threat of a split with the AUEW that was being played out at Blackpool. But During the half day of debate — with dozens of devoted to Thatcher's anti-trade union legislation there was no serious discussion, not even a direct mention in fact, of the possibility of a break with the AUEW and EEPTU.
From the outset it was clear a deal between the general council and the electricians and engineers was CAROL TURNER looks at the events at Blackpool and contrasts the drama reported in the media to the real situation at the congress — and at the nature of the final deal between the general counseats or sipped undrinkable tea in Winter Gardens cafes.
General secretaries glimpsed in fervent huddles outside the auditorium were more likely to be discussing how to hide their sell-out oi the Wembley decisions than what stage the negotiations were at. The bust-up with the new Icalsls was slage-llanagco by the general council from the start to finish in Darl to cloak the clear step away They came in, the sequestrators, and they seiz. ed our bank account - all 10 pebank they sid bank said: "I don't know.' They (the union funds) after about Not because they were brilliant detectives, but because the international banking system volunteered information as to where our money was. pound to a penny that it I'm willing to bet we a nave been a gangsie. . in York have deposited anywhere nobody would have found it. But the national union's money Iney revealca Instantly.
We applied to get our Luxembourg, Dublin, the Isle of Man, Zurich. They (the sequestors) lost in every inWe haven't won a and we Loult case lcie haven't lost one there.
So a new tactic had to be found. We suddenly found that there was an application Heathfield, McGahey and LU sack Scargill as trustees of the miners' because we'd acted irresponsibly in laking an e members' money away and investig I alival 'hev had put the money at risk.
Well, PIl tell you what we'd done. We'd put it so much at risk that we got 22 per cent interest rate infrom the 1982 special conthe te de antonion pass the that this congress was taking.
The first debate of congress set the scene for the events to come. The rest of the week proceeded according to plan — the only hic cup an unwanted vote of support for the miners.
A written supplement to the annua report brought delegates up to date with developments Concer the Angreat the be ming finance and general purposes (FGP committee had met the AUEW on 7 August concluded that the actions were 'contrary to the declared policy of congress'. The general council subsequently adopted the FGP report and, after a further meeting WELD Lne AUEW stead of nine. I ought to be on the honours list!
They took into court. Our barrister said: *Just say that you'll not move the money if they'll i1UL receiver.' Well that seemed fair to me - if we'd have red it they'd have seiz.ed it. So we agreed, the other side agreed.
We weni back into court tor declare to at hed age to declare that what the two parties had said. At the back of the courtroom a bloke in a wig said: 'I'm here from the se questrators. the judge said: 'Well I'm not supposed to hear you but 1 He listened to this fella for aboul an nour and a half, then he said: 'I agree with you.' And he sacked McGahey, and he sacked Heathfield, and he sacked Ille The judge appointed a who some later. Then they appointed receiver called Michael Arnold, who has SHICC the NUM that time said he's There's an ironic twist to this story, because in August, directed them 'discontinue such activities forthwith undertake not to engage therein it the future' While congress awaited Gavin Laird's reply, Ron Todd moved composite 2.
This formally reaffirmed the Wembley conference's total opposition to the Tory anti-union • laws, allo called on all affiliates not to cooperate with, and a future Repeals the 19 and '82 Employment Acts and the 1984 Trade Union Act.
"This composite motion concerns the impor tant issue we have faced in many years,' said Todd 'At its heart is a question of the fundamental credibility of British movement with the public, with the employers, and above all with this bitter and hostile government...
June 1984 I was a trustee of the miners' union and I was also a trustee of the mineworkers' pension scheme. the minerworkers' pension scheme we've got a bit of money: f6 thousand million.
Everything had gone
on fine for • years • fill I I said: "Where said: 'Well, they're invested properiy. I said: 'I want to know where. stopped the Along Pete Heathfield Mick McGahey, challenged for challenging what that charge of sour tomorrow.
We've. got the receiver. had no September We've with our printers, 'What we were saying at Wembley, in non-cooperation stand, , was that we should not and would not seek to do the Tory government's job by putting the legal frighteners on our members as we pursued the everyday process ; of collec.
tive bargaining.' It was from this 'essential principle' that encoronene NO EU sacrifice our basic economic independence equivalent of a penny on members' subs' But when it came Alitaling Graham Alistair CPSA declared himself favour of a 'slightly different emphasis'.
be foolhardy for Labour to accoun anti-trade union legislation, ne sala. , some parts were already popular with trade union members. The issue colleagues and friends we couldn't bring out newspapers or leaflets, we couldn't pay staff, we couldn't pay our rent or do anything.
Our union is facing a fight. We're fighting to sustain ourselves, and the and trade movernent's got to understand what's at stake. Out union's been hijacked, it's been laken over Dy ine state Don': start talking to me about what happens in For Chile, Bolivia - you've only got look here in where the union officials have been removed as trustees for carrying out the wishes their members. We were elected Dy lw per cent of our members as trustees of the we've been kicked out by unelected judge We're facing desperate problems, in terms of our financial future. We'll survive somehow even if it comes to the stage where no staff wages can be paid • and by the way me and Heathfield still aren't getting paid. But the most important thing to remember is that there's got to be a response from this moveWICHL.
The fight to save and sustain the NUM is you fight. Because to the extent that we're successfu in fighting the policies of the Board and the government, to that extent your causes are also successful.
was that ballots had to take place in a 'more neutral' atmosphere.
Thus the supposed unity around the Wembley decisions, and against the actions of the AUEW, choked at its first breath. Far from the differences with the new realist right being a question of 'essential principle', they were shown to be a matter of tactical degree and speed of development.
When Eric Hammond of the electricians' union took the rostrum to oppose the composite, carried such arguments to their logical CONCLUSI The Trade Union Act was 'nudg ing' unions into changing their practices, he declared.
The 'flexible attitude' of the EEPTU was serving its members better than Wembley package The 'Wembley days' had passed with the failure to elect a Labour government in 1983.
Why penalise the engineers or the electricians for being the first to recognise that After all the general council itself was going down the same path.
Ken Cameron's speech on the right to strike spelled out the real meaning of Tory laws. Mions railwaysist com munications essential services precluded from striking was potential ly endless, he pointed out.
'And that's what Eric Ham aled rad orion legist ion, repld is asking us to acBut if any delegate in the hall was unclear on the posi Norman put then right. Echoing his we can't do without the electricians or the engineers' Monday speech, he said not departing from Wembley. Thai would be giving a signal that we are packing up our policy of op position. But nor are we being daft and embarking on a colnsion course or de fiance which would result in ucoverale Isses. LISTE the TUC was not going to fight the anti-union legislation now, when it counts.
By Wednesday night the general council had cepted that the AUEW would ballot its members before taking more government money. Media pundits and general secretaries alike halled the decision as a crisis averted at the eleventh hour But the debate had shown essential points of principle separated the general council from the AUEW executive. It is this which is creating the rea problems IOr the movement. i ne stakes that led the special conferey to de the a polay non-cooperation anti-union legislation are just as high in 1985. That has already been shown by the NGA dispute by GCHQ, and finally and conclusively by the full weight of legal attacks the NUM during the strike.
There is no possibility lat the paper-tiger unity is year's TUC will fright a determined Tory government into backing down, the openly laborationist policies of the American-style unionism Thatcher would have others •emulate. The outcome of this year's TUC will en.
courage, courts from further attacks on the unions.
By refusing to support the miners during then 1984-85 the general its unwillingness to fight the LONe acquiesing presenting the AUEW's Droposed balot as a com promise' it is demonstrating much CLIC prepared to shed the fig-leaf of the Wembley decisions In reality the general council at its own pace, is preparing its own path for acceptance of the anti-union laws.
The for the proDiel trade union movement, and the general council, is that issue cannot be one the anti-union laws. The Tories arena to a real-life fight The onlv wav to comba the Tory attempts to pull the teeth of the movement is to stand and fight now in the struggle that will continue to take place long before the general election.
That means fighting every as it place, fighting to win the support that struggle, and demanding an in-coming Labour government throws out the whole parcel of Tory anti-union legislation. A for fighting the cher.
what most fier rhetoric amount can hide the anti-union The forward a split with the AUEW No has been the TUC accep Instead money.
What is needed is TUC be the council preparing own climb.
union laws.
Socialist Action 13 September 1985
----- pull-quotes -----
"Where's it men ere
'The Orgreave trial was a demonstration of corruption the like of which we haven't seen for half a century'
Tory Party member as the seme four weeks
desments ha they we in-