victimisations from Derek Robinson and the Longbridge
8, through to Alan Thornett and now Bob Cullen at Cowley
Gray gets around the question of industrial relations by saying they are "outside the scope" of the document: but his references to it make it clear he is proposing giving more information to unions but not control. He is certainly not looking at a full restoration of the union rights crushed in BL since 1978, which must include the reinstatement of the abovementioned workers victimised under the Tory government.
This is not surprising. The pamphlet is a propaganda text, and not designed to deal with the real blems faced by car workers. continuously praises the record of previous Labour governments. He ignores the fact that it was Labour who first and lan MacGregor on the British workers' movement!
The super-exploitation of BL workers and the weakness of their trade unions dates from then. Will we see more such appointments under a Kinnock government?
Gray's pamphlet is so right wing and much angled towards businessman's audience that it doesn't make a single even vaguely radical proposal. At most
guarantees to give BL some more
money for investment.
It says that BL has been weakened
by hiving-off Jaguar: but it makes no
call to renationalise Jags. Instead It
proposes to keep the "Golden Share"
in order to maintain Influence: yet
even the Tories are not proposing to
get rid of this!
Is this the future Labour enviseages
for all the companies privatised by
the Tories? Are they all to remain in
private hands?
No matter how many glib words are radical policy ot nationalisation of the uttered about planning"
whole motor industry its suppliers
and distributors, would ofter any real
chance to plan its operation. This
would also imply a nationalisation of
the banks and financial institutions,
to whom vast interest payments are
still being made.
Control of the nationalised in
dustries must be in the hands of the
workers, as part of a planned socialist
economy: on the basis of this kind of
example alliances and links can be
made with car workers and their
struggles in other countries. Instead
of a nationalistic alliance with
"British" employers, cutting the
throats of more workers at home and
abroad, there must be working class
action aganist every section of the
capitalist class — beginning with our
"own" exploiters at home.
That means rejecting the Labour
leadership's approach as spelled out
in Gray's pamphlet, and adopting in-
stead socialist policies for the car in-
dustry and every sector of industry in
Britain.
Unfairly sacked: but Tribunal "no" to reinstatement BOB Cullen, who was sacked from the Austin Rover Group Cowley Assembly Plant in November last year, had been "unfairly dimissed". That was the decision following a five hearing at the Reading Industrial Tribunal. By a unanimous decision, however, the Tribunal refused to give an order for reinstatement or even a recommendation to that effect. They made this decision on the basis that they regarded Bob Cullen responsible for his own dismissal on the grounds that, although innocent of all allegations against him, he had failed to identify to management who the guilty party actually was.
This must rank as one of the most
decisions taken by a Tribunal since the system was set up. It is outrageous even within the terms of Tribunais, which are so heavily loaded in favour of the employer that
favour of the
Bob Cullen's innocence had never been difficult to prove. He had been accused of damaging the windscreen
Ton a car driven by a
foreman who was entering the plant through a picket line on Sunday Oc-
1984. Nothing was said to
him at the time, but four weeks later
he was taken in front of management
"gross industrial misconduct"
Even the management side of the
Bob Cullen.
emerged that the foreman concerned
had not known Bob Cullen at the time
and was not at first able to identify
him. He later made the identification
after the name had been suggested to
him by a manager on the basis of his
He had told the manager that the
person involved was balding with a
beard. The manager said "That must
be Bob Cullen." After that manage-
ment clung to that identitication,
since Bob Cullen was in any case Socialiat Viewpoint, No. 7, September 1985, Page 12
By BILL PETERS targetted by them as a militant shop steward, who had led a number of strikes over recent years.
The whole thing descended into farce as it emerged that Bob Cullen was in fact on a different gate of the plant that morning - gate 10 - and had not at any time been on gate 16 where the incident occurred; that it
morning and therefore dark; that it was raining at the time; that the foreman concerned had only one eye and that the person that did
wiper arm also had a balding head and a beard.
It also emerged that there had been a serious abuse of the procedure agreement. After doing nothing for a month the whole procedure was forced through in three days. The trade union side had no time to prepare a case before the sacking took place. All decisions were predetermined from above and no witnesses in Bob Cullen's favour were allowed.
against Bob Cullen, the Chair of the Tribunal called the two sides together and presented them with what he called
'an interim judgement". He said that would find that Bob Cullen had in
unfairly dismissed and would recommend reinstatement, but
Tat this stage make a reinstatement order. On the basis of this he asked the two sides to try to reach an out of court settlement.
ARG offered 18,000 but would not
consider reinstatement. Bob Cullen rejected it, since he wanted reinstate-
ment and not a cash settlement and the only chance of this was a reinstatement order issued by the
Tribunal.
When the Tribunal reopened for
the Trade Union side to put their case
it became even mre clear that Bob
Cullen was simply being framed by
brought to show that Bob Cullen had management. Witnesses were
Bab Cullen (with placard) on the picket line af Cowley. never been on Gate 16 that morning. 1 This even included the works security guard who was on gate 16 at the time of incident and categorical statement that Cullen was not there.
Two witnesses went to the stand to say that they had witnessed the incident and that the person concerned was Peter Williams, another TGWU shop steward.
Ivor Braggins, the TGWU senior shop steward, went on to the witness stand to say that he had in fact told management who the guilty party was during the domestic discipline procedure and that management had OVER the past year the London Borough of Islington has shown itself despite its socialist retone Yest despite its "socialist" rhetoric. year it was involved against its staff in a 16 week strike in Children's Day Centres.
This year the Council leadership deftly manoeuvred itself out of the fight against ratecapping.
Nevertheless It could have been reasonably believed that when it came to confronting racist practices amongst its OWn something that would not have even cost money, the Council would have lived up to its manifesto mitments* or at least supported its own staff when they stood up racism. Unfortunately this has been the case, and NALGO members in Islington are now starting fourth week of strike action for the most basic principles.
There had been a long standing problem of racial harassment of black staff by white workers in the Rent Ac-
had told Mr Farrants, the Industrial Relations Manager, that the person made a arm was Pete Williams. Bob to the witness stand to confirm that he in fact was the one who had terfered with the arm, although he had not broken it as was claimed. the witness box and asked if he had in fact been given the name of Peter Williams during the domestic pro- cedure. He confirmed that he had been given the name but claimed that he had chosen not to pass it onto higher management. NALGO