No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008
Shop stewards, or other forms of workshop representation, are a common feature of British industry. It is not known for certain how many such shop floor representatives are active; estimates vary between 90,000 and 200.000, “the truth is probably somewhere between these two figures”. What is certain, however, is that the great majority of industrial workers, particularly in large-scale industry, have recourse to lay trade union representation for the settlement of shop floor grievances. Often such representatives are “the union” for the ordinary workman who does not come into contact with full-time union officers. “For the great majority of British trade unionists the workplace representative is their only direct personal link with their union.” He also provides a front-line defence against the arbitrary use of authority by management. If no shop steward existed, managerial authority, unchecked by the countervailing power of shop floor representatives, would be open to abuse. If such managerial authority was also supported by a system of legal powers which further strengthened its position, it would make possible “the use of penal sanctions to compel acceptance of working conditions which free agents would not endure”. Such was the case in the British Merchant Navy until less than five years ago.
page 1 note 1 Clegg, H. et al. , Trade Union Officers, Blackwell, 1961, p. 153, and TUC Report: 1960, p. 128.Google Scholar
page 1 note 2 Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, Research Paper (1), HMSO, 1966, p. 5.Google Scholar
page 1 note 3 Training Shop Stewards, Trades Union Congress, 1968, p. 4.Google Scholar
page 1 note 4 Kinahan, J., Unpublished Evidence to the Committee of enquiry into certain matters concerning the Shipping Industry, Chairman Lord Pearson, 1966.Google Scholar
page 2 note 1 Research Paper (1), p. 4.
page 3 note 1 British Trade Unionism, Political and Economic Planning, 1955. Quoted by A. J. M. Sykes, The Shop Stewards' Place in Industry.
page 3 note 2 Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations 1965–1968, Cmnd 3623, pp. 271–272.
page 4 note 1 The fate of various resolutions on Shipboard Representation at the NUS Annual General Meetings was as follows:
1943: Defeated by 36 votes to 1 vote (AGM Report 1943, pp. 118–121);
1945: Remitted to Executive Council (AGM Report 1945, p. 103);
1946: Referred to Executive Council (AGM Report 1946, pp. 130, 139);
1947: Defeated by 62 votes to 16 votes (AGM Report 1947, pp. 136–139);
1948: Defeated by 71 votes to 12 votes (AGM Report 1948, pp. 118–126);
1949: Withdrawn (AGM Report 1949, pp. 122–124);
1951: Defeated by 48 votes to 3 votes (AGM Report 1951, pp. 124–125);
1956: Defeated by 45 votes to 2 votes (AGM Report 1956, pp. 145–150);
1961: Defeated by 71 votes to 27 votes (AGM Report 1961, pp. 198–216).
pageto note 2 The power of permanent full-time union officers representing, in a “closed shop” Union, with an itinerant labour force, is obviously greater, in relation to the membership, than the power of a similar official who has to persuade members to join the union, and who can be called to account for his “stewardship”. In the National Union of Seamen the tendency toward oligarchical control is strengthened by a number of formal rules. Up to fifty per cent, of the delegates to the AGM could be full-time officials – these had full voting rights. The only experienced lay-men in the Union, the seagoing members of the Executive Council had no AGM voting rights unless they also represented a Union Branch. – This was changed at the Rules Revision Conference 1967 and EC members now have AGM voting rights ex officio.
page 5 note 1 National Union of Seamen – Report of Proceedings at the Annual General Meeting: 1943, p. 120 (Mr T. Yates, NUS National Organiser).
page 5 note 2 A fully-paid-up member of the NUS could attend any branch meeting but the possibility of doing so was severely limited for seafaring men because of absence from the United Kingdom.
page 5 note 3 NUS-AGM Report: 1945, p. 103 (Mr C. Jarman, NUS Acting General Secretary).
page 5 note 4 Ibid. (Mr P. Knight, NUS National Organiser).
page 5 note 6 Ibid. (Mr T. Yates, (now) Acting Assistant General Secretary).
page 6 note 1 It is difficult to understand what Mr T. Yates meant by supporting unofficial committees except perhaps that “unofficial committees” did not involve the official union in any responsibility for its actions and, under shipboard conditions, could have only very limited authority. The cynical view might be that any argument was permissible so long as it was against the idea of shipboard representatives.
page 6 note 2 NUS-AGM Report: 1947, p. 138 (Mr T. Yates, (now) Acting General Secretary).
page 6 note 3 NUS-AGM Report: 1945, p. 149.
page 6 note 4 NUS-AGM Reports: 1943, p. 121; 1945, p. 103; 1947, p. 138; etc.
page 7 note 1 NUS-AGM Report: 1943, p. 120 (Letter from Mr P. Murphy).
page 7 note 2 NUS-AGM Report: 1945, p. 101 (Mr J. Grey, Delegate for Tower Hill Branch).
page 7 note 3 Ibid. AGM Report: 1947, p. 137 (Mr Davis, Delegate for Port Talbot).
page 7 note 4 NUS-AGM Report: 1948, p. 119 (Mr B. J. Regan, Delegate for Southampton), and p. 123 (Mr J. McGurk, Victoria & Albert Dock (London)).
page 7 note 5 Ibid., p. 121 (Mr J. O'Keefe, Executive Council).
page 7 note 6 Ibid., p. 122 (Mr R. J. Wheatley, V. & A. Docks).
page 7 note 7 Ibid., p. 123 (Mr J. McGurk, V. & A. Docks).
page 7 note 8 Ibid., p. 125 (Mr J. Gray, Tower Hill Branch).
page 7 note 9 NUS-AGM Report: 1956, p. 146 (Mr D. MacDonald, Southampton).
page 7 note 10 NUS-AGM Report: 1961, p. 199 (Mr D. Macauley, Glasgow).
page 7 note 11 Ibid., p. 199 (Mr J. Kenny, Liverpool).
page 7 note 12 AGM Report: 1948, p. 123 (Mr J. McGurk, V. & A. Docks).
page 8 note 1 Membership of the National Union of Seamen is compulsory for all “lower deck” ratings. Deck and Engineer Officers, and Radio Officers, have their own unions. Neither of these were “closed shop” or concerned directly in the pressure for Shipboard Representation.
page 9 note 1 Liverpool Echo, July 8, 1960.
page 9 note 2 Ministry of Labour Gazette, August 1960, p. 345, and October 1960, p. 417.
page 9 note 3 The Times, July 15, 1960.
page 9 note 4 National Seamen's Reform Movement – London, August 2, 1960.
page 9 note 5 Southern Daily Echo (Southampton), June 7 and 8, 1955.
page 10 note 1 The Times, September 27, 1960. Emphasis by the author.
page 10 note 2 NUS-AGM Report: 1961, p. 205.
page 10 note 3 Ibid., p. 209.
page 10 note 4 The practice of full-time officials of trade unions voting at conference appears to be quite common in British trade unions. What is unusual in the case of the NUS is the proportion of full-time officials to lay members in the make-up of the Delegates to the Annual General Meetings. This high proportion combined with a generally inexperienced membership lent itself to possible abuse.
page 11 note 1 The Seaman, May-June 1962, pp. 60–61.
page 11 note 2 Rules of the National Union of Seamen, 1957, Rule 22, Clause 2, p. 46.
page 11 note 3 The Seaman, May-June 1962, pp. 60–61.
page 11 note 4 Ballot papers sent out 30,032 Hogarth 30,897
Ballot papers returned 17,167 Slater 9,855
Ballot papers spoiled 124 McDaid 2,547
Ballot papers returned blank 399. Arnold 1,884
Total votes 45,183.
The gerontocratic voting system was finally abolished in the Rules Revision Conference in 1966 as a result of general discontent with the system – the only one of its kind in any British trade union. The conflict between the NUS and the NSRM had directed a good deal of publicity to the system and brought it into disrepute.
page 13 note 1 NUS-AGM Report: 1962, pp. 127–138 and 144–148.
page 13 note 2 The Seaman, March-April 1963, p. 27.
page 14 note 1 The National Union of Seamen, Shipboard Handbook, p. 24.
page 14 note 2 The Seaman, October 1963, p. 162.
page 14 note 3 The Seaman, September 1965, p. 200.
page 15 note 1 NUS-AGM Report: 1968. (This is out of more than 2,00 vessels sailing under the “Red Ensign”.)
page 15 note 2 The factual information of this Scheme is from: National Union of Seamen – Shipboard Handbook – A guide to N.U.S. Shipboard Liaison Representatives.
page 15 note 3 NUS – Shipboard Handbook, pp. 14–19.
page 16 note 1 Final Report of the Court of Inquiry into certain matters concerning the Shipping Industry, February 1967, HMSO Cmnd 3211.
page 17 note 1 Kinahan, J., Unpublished Evidence to the Committee of enquiry into certain matters concerning the Shipping Industry, Chairman Lord Pearson, 1966.Google Scholar
page 17 note 2 “The British Shipping Industry”, in: Planning (PEP), Vol. XXV, No 437, 16 11 1959, p. 212.Google Scholar
You have
Access