INDUSTRIAL COURT THREAT TO TUC

THE TUC may face possible contempt charges if it decides at the Congress which opens next Mon day to expel or suspend the 35 unions which have failed to deregister under the Industrial Relations On Monday the TUC Will hear a key appeal against suspension by the National Union of Seamen.

Later the Congress will have to choose between the TUC General Council line of extending the suspensions until December or the engineers' motion for immediate expulsion under rule Either way the TUC may face a contempt action in the Industrial Relations Court leading to a heavy fine or possible sequestration of the movement's entire The NUS lawyers have already informed the TUC that the TUC action in suspending the union could lead to an NUS application to the Court for sequestration of its funds.

The lawyers argue that the TUC acted in contempt by suspending the NUS for refusing to drop its application to the court for an agency shop at sea and that the TUC will continue to be in contempt until the suspension is lifted.

This threat came in May, month after the TUC received a direct warning from the secretary of the court, Colin Seaton.

This was a heavy hint that more action against unions who stuck to their decision to remain the register would land the TUC in deep trouble.

Seaton's letter warned: 'Once application before the courts no attempt must be made dissuade anyone from giving evidence in those proceedings and still less mUSt be penalized for having done so.' The NIRC said at this stage that it had decided to take formal notice of the suspension but added, 'If any further action were taken against that union or any action was taken against anym other union or person in similar circumstances different view might be taken whether or not a complaint was received.' Again the TUC lawyers minimized this club-waving by the court.

But in its report on the seamen's suspension even the TUC was forced to admit, . 'the NIRC however, acted in unprecedented ways and the TUC might be found guilty of contempt of court by the NIRC which acted as judge and jury in its own cause'.

01-622 7029 CA The report added that if contempt proceedings were brought and the TUC-in line with the policy of non-co-operation — decided to boycott the action the court would inflict a punishment which the High Court of Appeal would find it difficult to overturn.

The stage is therefore set for a crisis within the trade union movement which would dwarf even the strikes and mass protests that broke out after the five London dockers were jailed.

The TUC is almost certain to reject the NUS appeal and continue its suspension when the debate is held next Monday afternoon, the first major session of the Congress at Brighton.

The TUC's own recommended policy constitutes 'further action ...against any union' to quote the NIRC warning.

The General Council say 35 unions be suspended and given until December 31 to get off the register.

If they don't expulsion will follow at the 1973 Congress. Meanwhile the unions concerned will immediately lose these important privileges after the vote:

Protection against poaching of members of other unions afforded by the famous Bridlington agreement. • Their leaders will not be eligible for election general, council. • They will have to leave Congress as soon as their suSpension has been decided. • Their resolutions before year's Congress will fall.

Danger of contempt action may come from two quarters. Should any of the 35 unions come before the court over the next year, court president Sir John Donaldson could activate his earlier unmistakable warnings and put the TUC and Victor Feather in the dock for contempt.

More serious is a possible action for any member of the unions suspended to make an application to the court directly.

The NUS, for example, may find itself in a battle for membership with the rival Transport and General Workers' Union.

This would encourage them to carry out their implied threat of May and apply for sequestration.

The whole issue proves once more that it is impossible for the TUC or any union to "live' with the Act. They are in constant danger of massive legal attack and confiscation of funds.

This is why a call to oppose the Act without a demand for General Strike to force the resignation of the Tory government and replace it with a Labour administration| to dismantle entirely the legislation, is totally inadequate.

The TUC when it meets in Brighton on September 4 should back the AUEW motion for immediate expulsion under rule They should also adopt the

CRUDENS-GORBALS

Glasgow bullding workers on the march. Last week th rejected a union bid to send corporation workers back Split dangers as builders THE BUILDING workers' light for the £30, 35-hour week claim enters its tenth week today. Over 270,000 workers are now on strike on 9,000 sites all over Britain.

Yet union leaders still refuse to call an all-out, national strike and in fact are doing their best to sabotage the fight.

They are still trying to get over 20,000 men back to work on the basis of separate company agreements.

And at the same time there is a strong possibility that the claim will be referred to the new arbitration machinery set up between the TUC and the Confederation of British Industry.

This phoney • set-up which is nothing more than machinery for wage-cutting will start its life this Friday.

It was none other that George Smith, general secretary of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, who as chairman of the TUC General Council, played a leading part in fixing up the conciliation deal.

The 12-man conciliation panel includes Peter Trench, chairman of J. Lovell (Holdings), one of the firms currently fighting the building workers. Trench was director of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and a member of Labour's Prices and Incomes Board.

Smith has now announced that 20,000 workers are to be sent back as a result of 83 agreements signed with separate companies, many of them in Scotland. told to return Not only is this move aimed at splitting up and demoralizing workers, but it also represents a real retreat from the claim.

The so-called Scottish 'model agreement is only for a basic wage of £25 a week and contains no cut in the working week.

After ten weeks on strike, however, most building workers realize the complete inadequacy of their leadership.

That is why a meeting of 7,000 building workers in Edinburgh on Friday threw out the policy SEA of concluding separate ments.

They demanded those who have already gone back in Aberdeen and Dundee be brought out again.

A noisy meeting also called for a 100 per cent strike and no retreat from the full claim for a £30 basic 35 hours and another week's holiday.

In doing that they joined the 4,000 in Glasgow who on the same day completely rejected a call by union officials for local authority workers to go back.