¹ Jackson, M. P., Labour Relations on the Docks (London, 1973), p. 3.Google Scholar

² In particular the Final Report of the Committee of Inquiry under the Rt. Hon. Lord Devlin into Certain Matters Concerning the Port Transport Industry [Cmnd 2734] (1965). For the Liverpool docks the main references are Report of the Commission of Inquiry Into the Subject of the Unemployed in the City of Liverpool (Liverpool, 1894); Rathbone, E. F., An Enquiry Into the Condition of Dock Labour at the Liverpool Docks (Liverpool, 1904)Google Scholar; Williams, R., The First Year's Working of the Liverpool Docks Scheme (London, 1914)Google Scholar; Hanham, F. G., Report of an Inquiry into Casual Labour in the Merseyside Area (Liverpool, 1930)Google Scholar; The Social Survey of Merseyside, ed. by Jones, D. C. (Liverpool, 1934).Google Scholar

³ See Flanders, A., Management and Unions: The Theory and Reform of Industrial Relations (London, 1970), p. 86; Purcell, J. and Smith, R., The Control of Work (London, 1979), p. 4.Google Scholar

⁴ Two studies relating to the inter-war period, Charles, R., The Development of Industrial Relations in Britain, 1911–1939 (London, 1973)Google Scholar, and Gospel, H. F., ‘Employers Organizations: Their Growth and Function in the British System of Industrial Relations in the Period 1918-1939” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1974), either omit port transport, or deal with it in only a cursory fashion, because access was not allowed to records and documents.Google Scholar

⁵ Committee on Industry and Trade, 1924–1927, Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II, p. 1048.Google Scholar

⁶ See Williams, , The Liverpool Docks Scheme, op. cit., p. 4.Google Scholar

⁷ Bean, R., “The Port of Liverpool: Employers and Industrial Relations, 1919–39”, in: Commerce, Industry and Transport, ed. by Anderson, B. L. and Stoney, P. J. M. (Liverpool, forthcoming in 1983). This essay also analyses the relationships between Liverpool port employers and other constituent employer groupings at national level.Google Scholar

⁸ Clegg, H. A., The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain (Oxford, 1970), p. 4Google Scholar; Hobsbawm, E. J., “Custom, Wages and Work-load in Nineteenth-century Industry”, in Labouring Men (London, 1964), pp. 344–70Google Scholar. See also Behagg, C., “Custom, Class and Change: The Trade Societies in Birmingham”, in: Social History, IV (1979), pp. 455–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ The same was true of dock work in other countries such as the United States. In the Port of New York, for instance, tradition, habit and established customs and practices also had a pervasive influence. See Barnes, C., The Longshoremen (New York, 1915), p.30Google Scholar, and Jensen, V.H., Strife on the Waterfront: The Port of New York Since 1945 (Ithaca, 1974), p. 142.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For an analysis of the role of custom see Weber, M., Economy and Society (New York, 1968), I, pp. 29Google Scholar, 319–20, 332. He distinguishes “custom”, in the sense of adherence to practices based upon long standing, from “convention”, which relates to conduct which is sought to be induced. Thus, “regularities of conduct (‘customs’) can […] become the source of rules for conduct (‘conventions’)” (p.332) — although the borderline between the two is fluid.

¹¹ Agreement Between Master Stevedores and Master Porters of Liverpool and the National Union of Dock Labourers, February 1903, Webb Trade Union Collection, Section C, Vol. 46, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London; Agreement as to Terms and Conditions of Dock Labour in the Port of Liverpool, August 1911 (the “White Book”), Cunard Papers, Booth files.

¹² Dock Labour Joint Committee, Minutes (hereafter DLJC), 8 02 1921, Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool.Google Scholar

¹³ (Employers') Dock Labour Organization Committee, Minutes (hereafter DLOC), 20 November 1925.

¹⁴ In 1914 there were 246 employers of dock labourers in Liverpool. Marquis, T. J., Handbook of Employments in Liverpool (Liverpool, 1916), p. 61.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, Port Facilities of Great Britain (London, 1924), p. 160Google Scholar; Cotter, E.P., The Port of Liverpool (Washington, 1929), p.38, 132.Google Scholar

¹⁶ DLOC, 18 October 1923.

¹⁷ Employers alleged that there was little short of a reign of tyranny at the South docks and in Birkenhead through the union's being able to dictate its own terms and conditions to the masters. Similarly, the coalheavers’ organization had enforced its own rules and regulations since the 1870s. Journal of Commerce, 22 February 1892 and 20 October 1893.

¹⁸ Hill, S., The Dockers: Class and Tradition in London (London, 1976), p. 68Google Scholar. See also Wilson, D. F., Dockers: The Impact of Industrial Change (London, 1972).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bain, G. S. and Price, R., Profiles of Union Growth (Oxford, 1980), p. 70, show that between 1910 and 1911 union membership in Port and Inland Water Transport increased from 51,000 to 141,000.Google Scholar

²⁰ Journal of Commerce, 13 July 1911.

²¹ Bean, R., “Employers' Associations in the Port of Liverpool, 1890–1914’, in: International Review of Social History, XXI (1976), p. 376.Google Scholar

²² DLJC, 29 October 1912.

²³ Compare Fox, A., Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations (London, 1974), p. 251Google Scholar: “the employer was subject to such a succession of minor disputes and stoppages that he was ready to recognize a union if in return it was willing and able to control his employees and process their grievances in an orderly manner with the minimum of disruption”. Flanders, A., “The Tradition of Voluntarism”, in: British Journal of Industrial Relations, XII (1974), pp. 355–56Google Scholar, has also emphasized employer interest in bringing about union recognition in order to secure union assistance in managerial control, in making and upholding rules, for the sake of gaining employee consent and co-operation and avoiding costly strikes.

²⁴ Co-ordinated employer action in labour matters was facilitated because of the increased concentration amongst employers which had taken place, such that the port transport industry on the Mersey had come to be dominated by a limited number of big shipping firms. See Hobsbawm, , Labouring Men, op. cit., p. 2l3Google Scholar. In this respect it has been pointed out that in oligopolistic-type industries “the relatively small number of largescale employers […] facilitates collective organisation and the small employers are constrained to join through the economic impossibility of their taking independent action against the unions”. Ingham, G. K., Strikes and Industrial Conflict (London, 1974), p. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Agreement as to Terms and Conditions of Dock Labour in the Port of Liverpool, 1911.

²⁶ DLJC, 20 January 1919. There were also health hazards from discharging particular commodities, such as dust in grain handling and the pungent and acrid atmosphere when shovelling phosphate rock. In some disputed cases the view of the Port Medical Officer of Health was sought.

²⁷ Dock employment was dangerous since it involved working from heights, over poor flooring and in bad lighting. In 1927, for example, the factory inspectorate found that in the Port of Liverpool there were 925 dock accidents, 20 of them fatal. DLJC, 25 February 1931.

²⁸ Ibid., 23 December 1912. The union representatives included a number of working dockers as well as officials. In practice, an exact equality of numbers from each side of the committee was unimportant, since decision taking by vote was regarded as being unlikely. Ibid., 19 November 1922.

²⁹ Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury, 22 August 1911.

³⁰ Cf.Ingham, , Strikes and Industrial Conflict, op. cit., p. 35.Google Scholar

³¹ DLJC, 23 December 1912, 26 May 1913 and 18 March 1924.

³² Ibid., 15 July 1912 and 10 December 1919.

³³ Walton, R. E. and McKersie, R. B., A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations (New York, 1965), p. 4. They distinguish between “distributive” bargaining (a fixed-sum game) to resolve pure conflicts of interest, and “integrative” bargaining (a varying-sum game) to find common or complementary interests and resolve problems confronting both parties.Google Scholar

³⁴ Employers wanted fewer disputes in order to help maintain and expand the trade of the port, whilst the union had been both embarrassed and less effective on occasions because of unofficial action by its members – as in the general transport strike of August 1911 in Liverpool. Thus both stood to gain from greater centralized control of the dock labour-force.

³⁵ Cf., Walton and McKersie, , A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, op. cit., p. 290.Google Scholar

³⁶ Williams, R., The Liverpool Docks Problem (Liverpool 1912), p. 11, shows that there was a surplus of at least 7,000 men over and above the requirements of the port at its busiest season.Google Scholar

³⁷ Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury, 12 July 1912.

³⁸ Ibid., 16 and 27 July, and Report of the Court of Inquiry Concerning Transport Workers, Wages and Conditions Of Dock Labour [Parliamentary Papers. 1920, XXIV], p. 296. In Birkenhead it was claimed that some dockers preferred what was termed the “jubilee system” of employment, working for only two days and one night to provide sufficient money for a week. Birkenhead News, 17 July.

³⁹ Allen, G. C. et al. , The Import Trade of the Port of Liverpool (Liverpool, 1946), p. 23Google Scholar, shows that during the period 1924‐38 Liverpool was gradually losing ground relative to other ports and that, superimposed on this trend, there was a strong cyclical influence tending to make Liverpool's share lower in the years of depression.

⁴⁰ Board of Trade, An Industrial Survey of Merseyside (London, 1932), p. 84.Google Scholar

⁴¹ DLJC, 29 09 1920.Google Scholar

⁴² Clegg, H. A., The Changing System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain (Oxford, 1979), p. 2.Google Scholar

⁴³ DLJC, 8 04 and 5 12 1924. Also, by longtime local custom at the South docks a similar extra payment was made to porters handling locust beans.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid., 22 March 1919.

⁴⁵ Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool, Committee Minutes, 11 July 1924.

⁴⁶ DLJC, 28 09 and 8 10 1925.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ cf.Clegg, , The Changing System of Industrial Relations, op. cit., p. 27.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ DLJC, 26 10 1932 and 2 05 1933.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid., 1 September 1933.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 20 December 1933, 31 May and 25 July 1934.

⁵¹ Compare Kuhn, J., “The Grievance Process”, in: Frontiers of Collective Bargaining, ed. by Dunlop, J. T. and Chamberlain, N. W. (New York, 1967), p. 255.Google Scholar

⁵² DLJC, 24 04 1934.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., 3 December.

⁵⁴ See Hanham, , Casual Labour, in the Merseyside Area, op. cit., p. 45. Hydraulic coaling appliances were also installed in some parts of the port.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Royal Commission on Transport, Minutes of Evidence, Vol. III (1930), q. 12,652. This was the proportion in the ports of London and Liverpool.

⁵⁶ Committee on Industry and Trade, Survey of Industrial Relations (1926), p. 86. indicates that between 1914 and 1925 wage increases for dock labour were substantially above the general average for a group of 13 export-related industries. See also Zimmer, F., “Portable Loading and Unloading Devices for Cargo Handling”, in: Dock and Harbour Authority, I (1920–1921), p. 18: “The rise in the cost of manual labour automatically promotes not only the perfecting of mechanical handling devices but also their more universal doption.”Google Scholar

⁵⁷ In addition to bucket elevators for hoisting or vertical transmission, for conveying grain horizontally an engineer with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had first invented in 1868, for use in the Liverpool docks, a belt-conveyor together with a “tripper” or throw-off carriage for discharging the load at right angles to the belt. He had originally tried moving grain by means of a “worm screw”, but found that its capacity was too low and power consumption too high. For simplicity of construction and economy of cost a rubber-and-canvas belt was most suitable. Britton, P. W., “The Transport, Storage and Manipulation of Grain”, in: Institute of Civil Engineering, Minutes of Proceedings, CXXVI (1895–1896), pp. 353–56Google Scholar; Zimmer, G. F., The Mechanical Handling and Storing of Materials (London, 1932), I, pp. 26, 43.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cunningham, B., Cargo Handling at Ports, 2nd ed. (London, 1926), pp. 132, 151Google Scholar; Knight, R. E., “Discharge of Grain Cargoes in the Port of London by Pneumatic Elevator”, in: Dock and Harbour Authority, 11 (1921–1922), pp. 147–50.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Rae, G. H., “Mechanical Cargo Handling”, in: Transactions of the Liverpool Engineering Society, XLIII (1922), p. 93–94. This paper contains detailed comparative-cost calculations for quay clearing by means of electric crane, as against trucking and piling bags by hand labour.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Zimmer, , “Portable Loading and Unloading Devices”, loc. cit., p. 18.Google Scholar

⁶¹ DLJC, 10 10 1932.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid., 7 February 1934.

⁶³ Ibid., 12 June 1930. As an illustration of the extent of labour saving in the firm's dock sheds it was estimated that to secure the equivalent output from 5 electric trucks each operated by one man it would be necessary to employ at least 26 dock labourers. Dock and Harbour Authority, VIII (1927–1928), p. 366.

⁶⁴ DLJC, 11 08 1926. These devices also had the advantage of minimizing damage to the cargo.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid., 24 April 1933; DLOC. 9 May 1936.

⁶⁶ Cf., J. F. B. Goodman et al. , Rule Making and Industrial Peace (London, 1977), p. 16.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ DLOC, 10 07 1939.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool, Committee Minutes, 12 October 1923. It was estimated that of the 15,000 men working fairly regularly at the docks only between 10,000 and 12,000 were paying subscriptions, even though probably they had all once been in good standing.

⁶⁹ DLJC, 15 11 1923. Many tallies had been issued to dockers' Sons.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool, Committee Minutes, 18 November 1923.

⁷¹ Ibid., 11 september 1934. Employers complained that the union was allowing the men to get into a frame of mind whereby they felt that they had only to stop work to secure their demands.

⁷² DLJC, 30 06 1930.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid., 24 February 1925.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 28 November 1911.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 10 October 1932. “Welting” on the Liverpool docks, whereby only half the gang worked at any given time, was more recently noted by the Devlin Committee of Inquiry (1965), p. 16.

⁷⁶ DLOC, 18 June 1937.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Flanders, A., “Collective Bargaining: A Theoretical Analysis”, in: British Journal of Industrial Relations, VI (1968), p. 3.Google Scholar