Appendix: Extract from At Home and Abroad

[p028] EXTRACT FROM “AT HOME AND ABROAD” 28th October, 1958 ANNOUNCER: Work on a large new office building by Waterloo Bridge, on the South Bank of the Thames, has been held up for many weeks by an unofficial strike. On Sunday, a conference of shop stewards from all parts of the country declared its support for the strikers. And now the Amalgamated Union of Building Workers has taken steps to discipline some of the strike leaders. Robert Kean, Director of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, is interviewed by Michael Shanks, Industrial Editor of the Financial Times. SHANKS: Mr Kean, this is a new experience for your industry, isn’t. it? I mean you don’t normally have a great -deal of industrial trouble? KEAN: Yes, I quite agree, it’s been unusual in its intensity, in its duration and I think especially in the high degree of -organisation that’s been associated with it. SHANKS: Well now, what is there about the Shell site, where this trouble has occured, that is so peculiar? Why ‘should there be this trouble there? KEAN: Well, this job is the beginnings of the erection of the highest skyscraper building in Europe. It’s situated in the centre of London and therefore it’s ideally suited to -anyone who wishes to make it a centre of publicity. SHANKS: Yes, well that’s all very well, but after all, McAlpines have dismissed twelve hundred and fifty workers after a whole series of troubles, now why have they done this? KEAN: Well, they have not done this as a deliberate act of policy, but rather as a consequence of a series of events that have been going on since the job started. There have been a large number of unofficial strikes over a period of almost a year; the sequence of operations—the technical operations on the job have been interrupted and the situation had been brought about that there were men on the site—considerable numbers of men—standing about doing nothing. And there- fore, as a practical proposition, McAlpines had no alternative but to stop the job, with a view to re-phasing it and starting up again. SHANKS: Yes— KEAN: I would like to add too, that the conciliation board of the industry—both sides of it—both employers and Trade Unions, said at the time that McAlpines were fully justified in what they did. SHANKS: Yes, but you see, it’s often said, isn’t it, that there are no bad workers, only bad employers. But you don’t think that McAlpines were to blame at all for all this trouble? KEAN: Well, I know that’s been said, I think it’s been said by the people who want that to be believed. But all I can say about that is that if in fact the workers on the site felt that they had grievances, well, the proper course would be to submit these grievances to the joint machinery of the conciliation board and have them dealt with there. The fact that this procedure was consistently ignored, that demands were made and were not met, labour withdrawn, seems to imply quite clearly that the grievances were not open to proper examination. ‘SHANKS: Well, you’ve implied, Mr. Kean, that some people —you haven’t said who—have been using this dispute at the Shell site for purposes of publicity. Now could you be a “bit more precise? KEAN: Well, I have said Mr. Shanks, I think, I don’t know what I’ve implied, but I’ve said that there was a very high degree of organisation associated with this particular strike. It’s been extremely well organised. SHANKS: Well, who are the organisers? KEAN: Well, honour where honour’s due, it was organised by somebody and it was organised very efficiently by some- body. The pickets were far more numerous than usual, our information is that many of them had never worked on the job at all, they had been drawn from other parts of the country. They were supported by a paraphernalia of propa- ganda, such as loudspeakers, publication of papers and journals. All I can say is, Mr. Shanks, that it was certainly not organised by the established Trade Unions. SHANKS: Yes, but then you still haven’t answered my question as to who you think in fact was organising it. Who brought up these pickets, who produced these papers? Some- body must have done. _ KEAN: I agree somebody must have done, that is a very . interesting question and some of the national newspapers have been asking that question; and some of them have been attempting to answer it. Some of the national newspapers have attributed this organisation to a group of people who I think have been termed “Trotsky-ites” and they have said that these people are people who came out of the Communist Party some time ago and have formed this group for their own particular purposes. If the newspapers are to be believed, that seems to be the situation. SHANKS: So you, broadly speaking, accept this theory that the people behind the trouble at the Shell site are this group of ex-Communists who left the Party, I believe mainly at the time of Hungary, and who are now—can be loosely described as “Trotsky-ites” and who are out to cause trouble in industry. You accept this do you? KEAN: That is what I read in the newspapers, yes. SHANKS: Well then, if this is true, this would seem to be an offence—an attack on the recognised leadership of the Communist Party, as well as an attack on McAlpines? Have you any evidence to support this? KEAN: That may well be so, and J could imagine that if the facts are as you state, that the Communist Party would not be over-pleased about it, no. SHANKS: You haven’t any evidence that the Communist Party itself is particularly pleased about the Shell dispute? KEAN: No, no. SHANKS: Well, I can move on to another point and that’s the attitude of the official Union leaderships, which as far as I can see, has been extremely co-operative from your point of view. Would you agree with that? KEAN: Oh, I think I would do more than agree with that. I think I would say that this in my view has really been much much more an attack on established Trade Unions and the leaders, than it has been on an employer. I view the Shell site as a sort of battleground across which this battle has been waged and I view McAlpines as being the person who’s really been victimised. SHANKS: Yes, but although the Unions are now co- operating with you to a really remarked extent, will this continue? I mean McAlpines presumably when they recruit new labour are going to try to keep out the known trouble- makers, as they see them. Now will the Unions, do you think, agree with this? KEAN: Well, McAlpines will certainly be bound in building up their labour force, to use their own judgment as to which people they take into their employment and which people they don’t. And equally if any man who has worked on that 89

[p029] LABOUR REVIEW site before, feels aggrieved if he’s not taken on again, then that man in our democratic country, with our democratic institutions, has the right to put his case to the Trade Union — and it’s for the Trade Union to decide then, what theyll do with it. If they feel he has a good case, then no doubt they will bring it before the conciliation board and have it dealt with on its merits. SHANKS: Yes. So you don’t think that McAlpines could have done more to screen known trouble-makers when the job first started? KEAN: That may be, but it’s people like McAlpines and other firms, their concern in life is to build things— SHANKS: Yes. KEAN: -—and they're not perhaps experts in this field. October-November 195% SHANKS: Well now, could I ask one short question to finish up with Mr. Kean? There’s been this meeting of shop stewards last Sunday; do you think this means more trouble for your industry and if so, how are you going to deal with it? KEAN: Well, I think the Trade Unions in our industry are very well aware of the situation and I think we on the employers side will leave it to them to handle the situation. And I don’t think that it’s necessary for us in the employers” side to consider any further action. SHANKS: I see. Thank you very much, Mr. Kean. KEAN: You're welcome. ANNOUNCER: And with that interview, we end tonight's programme. “At Home and Abroad” will be on the air again at nine-fifteen on Friday.