The TGWU has been heavily criticised in some parts of the media over its role in the Liverpool docks dispute. Bill Morris sets the record straight.
The dispute on the Liverpool Docks has been running for nearly eighteen months. It has its origins in the dismissal of 80 dockworkers by Torside Ltd., a company which operates in the docks, following a dispute concerning overtime payments which led to the sacking of five men.
The Torside employees then decided to mount a picket of the dock, directed at employees of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, demanding that MDHC take responsibility for their re-engagement. In doing so, they disregarded the advice of the deputy general secretary of the union, Jack Adams, who warned that this could lead to further sackings.
This is what happened – the MDHC dismissed 320 (sic) of its own employees who refused to cross the picket line mounted by the Torside workers. Because the MDHC workers were not in direct dispute with their own employer, and had broken their contract of employment without first holding an industrial action ballot, the TGWU became vulnerable to legal action for damages by MDHC or any ship owner.
The union's biennial delegate conference has made it clear that while we operate under draconian Tory legislation designed to weaken legitimate trade union activity, the leadership of the union has an obligation to preserve the fabric of the TGWU and not engage in activities for which it has no immunity or legal protection.
This is not a position any trade union would wish to be in. Everyone would wish to be able to give full support to any group of members unjustly dismissed, as the Liverpool dockers have been. However the TGWU has an obligation to all its 900,000 members, which must include avoiding action which could render the union unable to operate on behalf of those members.
In that context, we have had to be particularly mindful of protecting the future of the 1,000 TGWU members still employed by MDHC and not involved in the present dispute.
Nevertheless the union has endeavoured to give our members in Liverpool whatever support it can. This has included:
These facts give the lie to the theme being developed by a few ultra-left journalists that the TGWU has abandoned its responsibilities in relation to the Liverpool dockers. The Guardian, in particular, has given space to attacks on the union and its leadership, yet has failed to print in full letters of rebuttal submitted to it. These letters are reproduced here.
"The unofficial action which resulted in the employer being able to use Tory legislation to sack the dockers thwarted the union's ability to intervene"
John Pilger is entitled to his opinions, even though it is surprising that the Guardian should give so much space to the banal view that all the problems of the last 17 years can be laid at the door of "the timidity of union barons." He is not however entitled to maliciously represent the position of the TGWU in general, nor in relation to the Liverpool Docks dispute in particular.
Firstly, it is absurd to assert that the TGWU made "no sustained attempt" to oppose the abolition of the National Dock Labour Scheme in 1989. For several months we did little else, both politically and industrially, despite the difficulties posed by the Tory anti-union legislation which Pilger so blithely ignores. Subsequently, we also funded the longest industrial tribunal unfair dismissal case in history which resulted in the Tilbury dockers proving their case, an outcome totally ignored by the employers.
Secondly, it is a slander on the union to allege that we have an "unspoken sweetheart agreement" with employers in the Liverpool docks. Presumably, Pilger feels that the word "unspoken" absolves him from the need to provide any evidence. The fact is that on the Liverpool docks, as elsewhere, the TGWU works solely for the interests of its members under the most difficult of circumstances.
Thirdly, let us have some simple truth here about numbers. Of the 1,000 TGWU members employed by the Merseyside (sic) Docks and Harbour Company, 328 were dismissed; 80 others were employed by a separate company, Torside.
Fourthly, Pilger seeks to make much of my reluctance to be interviewed by him, a reluctance more than justified by the anti-TGWU bile which suffuses from his article. He would have been more honest had he referred to his own aggressive refusal to submit written questions when this was offered by the union's press officer – possibly because unambiguous answers which could not be twisted may not have suited his pre-determined thesis.
Fifthly, Pilger alleges that I called the dockers' leaders to London to tell them to abandon their struggle. This is a direct lie. Far from any notion of abandoning the struggle, the purpose was to define our tactics for the round of negotiations which were pending and which were to be led by the deputy general secretary.
The unofficial action which resulted in the employer being able to use Tory legislation to sack the dockers thwarted the union's ability to intervene and, indeed, we have had to defend writs served on the union both at home and in the American courts. Despite all of this, the TGWU has worked closely with the shop stewards and insisted that they be involved in all the talks to find a negotiated settlement to the dispute. One of the difficulties in resolving this dispute, which John Pilger seems to ignore, is the demand by the shop stewards that 80 men, who never worked for the company in the first place, must be employed by Mersey Docks and Harbour Company as part of the settlement.
Additionally, our efforts to secure a dialogue and negotiated settlement with the employers are continuing, as is the support which the TGWU has given to the community fund established on Merseyside to relieve hardship amongst dockers' families.
Finally, which Pilger writes that "for much of its history the TGWU... has served the aims of the British establishment" he slanders the lives and work of the millions of British men and women have built up this union as a democratic working class organisation fighting for social justice. Perhaps he should explain why the establishment has devoted so much time and energy to undermining unions like the TGWU over the last 17 years. Our survival owes nothing to the advice of John Pilger and the like.
If John Pilger's article serves any purpose it is only in reminding us that ultra-left politics so often end up in the same place as the policies of the right – attacking the organisations of the labour movement.
In the Saturday weekend supplement there was an article by John Pilger about the Liverpool dockers' strike. The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) wishes to correct a factual error that was reproduced.
It is not true that the ITF stopped Belgian and German unions from going to Liverpool.
Without going into the complex history of the dispute which is currently at a sensitive stage, we would like to make clear the following.
We all want this dispute ended soon on terms acceptable to the dockers. The TGWU, the TUC and the ITF are all doing everything they can to achieve this objective. The idea that total victory was somehow snatched from their grasp because a couple of people did not show up at a conference in August is, frankly, ridiculous.
We were not contacted by the journalist who wrote this article and we would have been very happy to talk about this dispute and the many similar situations that are happening globally. One of the major reasons that the Liverpool strikers have received so much support throughout the world is because dock workers' unions can see that what is happening in Liverpool is being tried by port employers all over the world.
From David Cockcroft (International Transport Workers Federation general secretary), Bob Baete (Belgian transport workers' national secretary), and Manfred Rosenberg (German dockers' secretary)The Merseyside Port Shop Stewards assert that there is no difference between the positions of the employer and the TGWU in the Liverpool docks dispute and that there is little hope of a negotiated settlement to the dispute.
These two false positions add up to a counsel of despair. Firstly, the shop stewards are well aware of the support given to them by their union, notwithstanding the fact that the dispute falls foul of the draconian anti-union legislation passed over the last 17 years, a fact many of the TGWU's critics simply ignore.
Secondly, there is no realistic way this dispute – like most disputes – will end without a negotiated settlement. That is why the TGWU has put so much effort into working for an acceptable agreement aimed at ending a dispute which has damaged the Liverpool docks and the whole Merseyside community, as well as the interests of our unjustly dismissed members.
In taking the position we have, the TGWU leadership has discharged its obligation to the union as a whole, in protecting our assets from sequestration, and to all our members employed at the Liverpool docks, including the 900 who have continued working throughout this dispute.
