Convention organizers:
Mr. John Bowers, President of the Dockers' Section ITF (I.L.A.) Mr. David Cockroft, General Secretary ITF Mr. Kees Marges, General Secretary of the Dockers' Section ITF.
Restricted Committee Members:
Mr. Norman Parks (I.L.W.U. representing America) Mr. Julian Garcia Gonzales (Coordinadora de Travajadores del Mar, representing Europe)
Mr. Michel Murray (Montreal Dockworkers Union, SCFP, local section 375, representing the host organization of the 2nd International Dockworkers' Conference).
This document is an objective synthesis of the debates held at the International Dockworkers' Section of the International Transport Federation convention (ITF). These debates relate solely to the Liverpool conflict being the only goal of the Restricted Committee mandate.
The other points and subjects discussed at this Convention are not to be analyzed in this report.
A. To sensitize the ITF Dockworker members to the Liverpool conflict.
B. To obtain a clear precise position from the ITF on the Liverpool conflict.
C. Work to make the ITF integrate the two (2) step action plan born of Resolution no. 1 of the 2nd International Dockworkers' Conference in union with the Coordinating Committee named by Resolution no. 8.
D. Issue a report at the end of the ITF Convention to the Coordinating Committee.
Of the three (3) members of the Restricted Committee, only Norman Parks through his union, the I.L.W.U., is affiliated to the ITF.
For this reason, Michel Murray and Julian Garcia Gonzales had the status of observers, without speaking privileges!
Another difficulty appeared when following a letter from David Cockroft dated Jun 3rd specified that if was necessary to obtain permission from the Spanish and Canadian unions affiliated to the ITF to allow Messrs. Murray and Gonzales access to the Convention room.
The Canadian West Coast, through Tom Dufresne, president of the I.L.W.U. presented no problem.
It was another thing for our Spanish friends who were denied access even as Convention observers, two (2) representatives of a minor Spanish union but affiliated to the ITF threatening to officially leave the Convention.
They were admitted as observers, their union, T.G.W.U. being officially represented by Messrs. Stevenson and Maher.
As you will notice in the joined copy of the Miami Convention's agenda, no specific place was reserved for the Liverpool conflict.
One certainty: the reaffirmation at the end of the Convention of a general order resolution coming from the European Section of ITF Dockworkers.
First and foremost, the delegates present at the 2nd International Dockworkers' Conference in Montreal must be aware that although the Miami Convention centered on the International Section of Dockworkers of the ITF, very few delegations present June 9th and 10th consisted of Dockers.
The following delegations were representative of Docking trades:
Without being exhaustive this list is interesting because we can see two categories emerge:
First category:
The unions represented in Montreal and present in Miami come from the following countries: Japan, South Africa, Canada, USA, Russia, Portugal, New Zealand.
Second category:
The unions invited to Montreal but having refused estimating that the Montreal Conference was a redundance of the Miami Convention , but as we do know, the Miami agenda left no room for Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the entire profession worldwide knows about the Liverpool conflict. There is no doubt that during the Miami Convention a specific awareness of the Liverpool conflict was made possible by the Merseyside Port Shop Steward as well as by members of the Restricted Committee.
There is no doubt that the delegates present at the Miami Convention seemed to want a solution to the Liverpool conflict.
But it is also true that:
The Liverpool conflict was not specifically on the agenda: No modification to the agenda was possible after consulting with the Organizing Committee of the Convention.
Thanks to an intervention by Mr. Maher of the T.G.W.U. the Convention organization agreed that Jimmy Nolan and Terry Teague address interested delegates out of session.
Thus about thirty of the hundred delegates present at the Convention attended an awareness seminar after 6 PM June 9th.
It was impossible to obtain a clear and precise position from the ITF due to the fact that on the one hand it was not on the agenda and on the other hand the T.G.W.U. was present in the room. The T.G.W.U. being as we know the official representative and negotiating agent for the Merseyside Port Shop Steward.
At no time did Messrs. Bowers, Cockroft and Marges mention the Liverpool conflict nor the official ITF position or at least the Dockers International Section on the matter.
Only Mr. Bowers, president of the ILA, and speaking only for the ILA, asserted at the out of session meeting at 7PM, that the ILA would participate if the movement is worldwide and if everybody participates.
We must note that in his report on the Dockers European Section of the ITF, Mr. Bob Baete only transmitted the wish that a negotiated settlement can be achieved.
Finally, the T.G.W.U. through Graham Stevenson reminded everyone that the time was not for action but for the conclusion of an agreement. Moreover, a stronger intervention by the T.G.W.U. in the matter was impossible because of British law particularities and the risks that other T.G.W.U. affiliates would incur in such a case.
The best solution to make the ITF integrate the action plan born of the 2nd International Dockworkers' Conference was to obtain a resolution at the Miami Convention, this solution had to be abandoned because of a number of reserves.
Another solution would have been to integrate the Montreal Resolution no.1 to the ITF Dockers European Section resolution dated February 1997 ( see enclosed copy). After a number of out of session discussions, no result was achieved.
The only issue was:
Glen Riminskey of the I.L.W.U. (West Coast USA) asked the tribune that the February general order motion ot the European Section of the ITF be reaffirmed by the Miami Convention and he specified that regardless of legal problems incurred by the T.G.W.U. the support of Liverpool had to consist of a two-part action plan that would be a 24 hour movement or any other industrial action and a cascading action against the ships of companies docking in Liverpool.
It is quite clear that the ITF:
Was sensitized to the Liverpool conflict mostly thanks to Jimmy Nolan's and Terry Teague's out of session intervention. Has not stated a clear and precise position in relation to the Liverpool conflict.
Has not officially integrated the action plan issued from Resolution no.1.
Resolution no.10 of the 2nd International Dockworkers' conference specifies that (last paragraph) "The Restricted Committee will have the same members as the Coordinating Committee", this last mandate is therefore redundant.
