ICI VERSUS

Michael Clapham's recent outbursts demanding cuts in the standard of living of the working class do not only reflect the views of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), of which he is president.

These views are also shared by the board of ICI, the country's biggest industrial company, where he is deputy chairman.

Clapham is one of the top five men contralling more than £1,750m of capital tied up in the manufacture basic raw materials, artificial fibres, explosives and non-ferrous metals.

Irritation with the Tory government is based on big business's belief that Heath and company are not standing up to the working class with sufficient resolve.

The strength of the working class intensifies the economic crisis facing the monopolies like ICI, where white-collar workers are demanding resistance to redundancies and wagecuts.

There was anger and embarrassment, therefore, at ICI's Matinent here headquarters two weeks ago when directors received advance copies of an article in the 'New Statesman' by Peter Paterson which disclosed in considerable detail the machinations of the company over the past two years to prevent white-collar unions from gaining negotiating rights for ICI clerical staff.

He drew attention to the company's moves which have led to the setting up of a staff association-one of the first to register under the Industrial Relations Act.

To explain all the wheeling and dealing that has taken place it is necessary to examine part of the history of attempts to gain union recognition in the giant firm.

Before the end of 1969 ICI was faced with a drastic slowdown in the increase of its sales and the failure of the Labour government to tame About this time managementunion discussions began for a new scheme of speed-up and work study-the Weekly Staff Agreement (WSA) for production workers and Staff Development Programme (SP) for clerical workers.

At the end of 1970 two-thirds of production workers were on WSA and all staff were on the new SDP conditions. The 1970 annual report said: Following a series of discussions among work groups within factories and departments designed to improve performance . . . management had moved on to the next objective - making sure that improvement plans at every level played a systematic part in all company activity.' And the result? Better working practices and relationships created by this productivity programme have played a useful part in reorganization of the factories.' And in another internal memorandum it was noted: 'Notable improvements in productivity have already been made in recent years. The company believes that, given the right conditions, continuing substantial increases in productivity are possible. The foundations for this belief are experiences at the WA sites, supported by a large body of research carried out inside and siside ICI REDUNDANCY i ne 'reorganization', Ol: course, spelled big redundancies, because, in spite of productivity-dealing, ICI was by no means out of the woods. The 1970 annual report made this point quite clear:

'As forecast by the chairman last spring ICI had a difficult year in 1970. Rısing costs of wages and salaries and the slower growth rate of world industrial production and trading, especially in the UK, all combined to cut profit margins down.' A survey carried out Petrochemicals Division at that time showed that ICl had a much higher proportion of administrative staff per unit of menduntion than their Com- o1 prouucuun udu lueu VULI mon Market competitors. Clearly big redundancies among clerical workers had been decided by the spring of 1970. Under this threat there was mounting interest in trade unionism and proper union representation.

Management strategy was to resist staff unionization without giving the impression that the company was hostile to the right of staff to organize. In this spirit the Central Personnel Department issued a notice in June 1970 which stated: 'Nuer the last few vears UVEI LIC staff unionism has increased in the country as a whole. It has been encouraged by government policy and influenced by the findings of the Donovan Commission and the Commission on Industrial Relations.

'The company acknowledges the right of staff to have their conditions of employment determined by collective bargaining if they so wish, but it would expect certain conditions to be satisfied before agreeing to claims from a Staff Union or a group of Stafi * Bet 1 Stan Davison of ASTMS Unions to bargain collectively on behalf of their members. These are: '(a) A company-wide policy for major conditions of employment.' (The purpose of this clause was to prevent militant staff in any single department organizing to improve their own wages and conditions which would give rise to leapfrogging' throughout the ICI empire.) So it was specified: '(b) The minimum size of group involved in collective-bargaining arrangements should be a company-wide "common -interest group"! Having laid down these basic lines of strategy the documents added, almost casually: 'Opportunity to discuss this statement and its implications will be provided in the first place through • Staff Committees and the individual view of every member of staff will be sought by means of a survey conducted by an independent So in June 1970, just before the General Election, the company set in motion what appeared like a wide-ranging discussion on the future organization that white-collar workers wanted.

But it was the role of this "independent organization'— the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations-which was the key to the. next stage of the company's strategy.

It sounded like a debate on 'freedom of choice. But ASTMS assistant general secretary Stan Davison revealed that there were deeper and more bitter issues at stake when he wrote in 'ASTMS Journal' in August 1970: 'Whether or not the Tavistock Institute finally conducts its attitude survey is now almost irrelevant.

'It clearly Is no longer operating in an atmosphere where the staff can genuinely exercise their right to join a union of their own choice without any attempt to influence this choice. On the contrary, many forces are at work to goad, cajole and even threaten occasion is bound to give rise to disquiet.

In the first place, the Tavistock researchers allowed the company to second to their team a consultant who was under contract to, and paid by, ICI-Professor K. F. [Kenneth] Walker, who is director of the Institute of Labour Studies at the headquarters of the International Labour Organization in Geneva.' Paterson says that Walker was involved in substantially amending the draft questionnaire sent to employees and he even insisted that the questionnaire treat staff associations and unions 'as equally as possible'. He says that when Walker was introduced to union officials he was introduced 'not as an £80-a-day consultant under contract to Il, but as a member or the af shaa Truistach: team'. would interpi hostile action. please treat th ASTMS and re are wiin il. vi nta marith the TUC abor every TUC ization.' ret this as a But they did. So is body as antiefuse to collaborVo ans informina ut our view and affiliated organproved statt committee system.

Nevertheless, it paved the way for the formation of an ICI Staff Association registered Art Campoell Adamson, Cbi director (lett), with Michael Clapham, deputy chairman of the huge ICI consortium.

been told that their Research and Textile Development Department will be closed over the next two years and that