Shopped

By MARK BONHAM CARTER, MP rr HE closed shop is an ugly problem; and the story of the Aeronautical 'Engineers Associa- tion is a sad story and a bad story. Since the Conservatives came into power in 1951, much less has been heard of the AEA than during the Labour Party's term of office. In spite of seven years of Tory freedom, the AEA are still perse- cuted. In the 1930s, aeronautical engineers, or mechanics, as most of us would call them, were a relatively new breed. There was, indeed, no scheme of indentured apprenticeship for such creatures, and in consequence mechanics em- ployed by Imperial Airways who applied for membership to one of the 'craft' engineering unions were rejected. At about the same time, civilian engineers employed by the Air Ministry to service military aircraft were being recruited from the Government Training Centres, which were' set up to train young men who were in danger of becoming permanently unemployed.

These young men, working in non-union estab- lishments, set up an ad hoc organisation called `The Tool Pool' which acted as -a kind of trade union. The movement spread and in 1942 it was decided to federate the Tool Pools into a formal trade union. An application made to the Air Ministry for facilities was turned down; and no further action was taken until '1943, when an agreement was negotiated between the Air Ministry and the AEU by which those who had been recruited from Government Training Centres were put in a less favourable position than other tradesmen. 'The resentment to which this discriminatory agreement gave rise stimulated the formation of the Aeronautical Engineers Associa- tion on April 6, 1943, and it was registered as a trade union in the same year.

The new union was, from the start, bitterly opposed by the already established unions. The AEU successfully objected when the Air Ministry announced that it proposed to recognise the AEA at establishments -where the AEA had a clear majority. The Transport and General, .Workers' Union issued leaflets attacking the AEA and urging all its area officers to ,`bring about its speedy demise.' It was hardly by chance that the first agreement between BOAC and the group of unions affiliated to the TUC was dated as being effective from April 4, 1943, two days before the Tool Pool became the AEA.

The original rules of the AEA-made provision for affiliation tothe TUC but not for any form of political affiliation with the -Labour Party. How- ever, in 1944 -it was agreed that a Labour Party spokesman should address the delegates of, the 1945 Conference. Mr. Arthur 'Greenwood duly appeared in June, 1945, to put the case for political affiliation, and with the help of Mr: Shepherd, then the Labour Party's national agent, the rules of the Association were altered to allow political affiliation. By the time the application for affiliation was made, the Labour Party was in power and the application was rejected by the TUC and the Labour Party. In both cases the initiative to veto the application was taken by representatives of the AEU and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers.

Early in 1946 negotiations between the AEA and BEA and BOAC for formal recognition were taken to the Ministry of Labour for conciliation. It was proposed to the AEA by the conciliation officer that they collect the signatures of their members in the employment of BOAC and BEA, and it was agreed that if the AEA had a clear majority of the grades it represented, then BOAC and BEA would consider giving AEA exclusive recognition.' If its membership was less than 50 per cent., but 'none the less substantial.' the AEA would get the same recognition as the TUC unions in accordance with the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, Clause 37, which was repeated in Clause 19 of the Labour Government's Civil Aviation Bill which had passed its second ring at the time of these negotiations.

The result of the AEA's collection of signatures showed that 65 per pent, of the grades concerned were members of the AEA.

Meanwhile, the AEU, which knew of the negotiations between BOAC and the'AEA, brOught pressure to bear on the Government. As a result, on June 19; 1946; the Government moved an amendment .to Clause 19 of the Civil Aviation Bill which had the effect of requiring the Cor- porations to recognise unions which had sub- stantial membership only if the Corporations were not already satisfied that an alternative machinery was in existence. In addition, I understand that the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, wrote to the TUC and reassured them by pointing out that under the Bill the Government retained the right to give directions to the Corporations as to the recognition of trades unions.

From this moment the campaign against the AEA, conducted at first by the interested unions and after 1945 by the Government as well, was reinforced by the Managements of BOAC and BEA. Meetings of employees were held during working hours on the Corporations' premises. These were addressed by officials of the TUC unions, and were devoted-to attacks on the AEA. The AEA was not given an opportunity to reply. At one BOAC station, the Management called a meeting to 'hear an officer of the AEA.' When the AEA members turned up to attend the meeting, it was announced that a mistake had been made and the meeting would be addressed by an official of the AEU. In the autumn of 1946 the Minister of Labour, Mr. George Isaacs, held a number of meetings to set up a National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. The AEA were not invited; they were excluded from the NJC, and have been ever since.

The Corporations took their cue with alacrity. They posted AEA members to undesirable jobs, barred them from overtime and agreed with the TUC unions that when they obtained 100 per cent. in any shop, no AEA member would be allowed to work there. At London Airport, both Corporations were allotted large new headquarters buildings. Both were declared 100 per cent. closed shops before a single workman entered. None the less, the 4EA attribute the fact that up to 1951 neither Corporation enforced a complete closed shop to the activity of the Conservative Opposi- tion. Conservative Members asked questions, moved adjournment debates, etc., and by these means extracted undertakings from the Corpora- tions that they would not discriminate against AEA members.

During the General Election of 1951, the AEA asked the Conservative Party what their attitude would be to the recognition of the unions which were not affiliated to the TUC. The Conservative Central Office replied that a Conservative Govern- ment would ensure that Government Departments and State enterprises would recognise unions on the 40 per cent. formula.

This pledge was not, of course, fulfilled. When the Conservatives came into power Staff Relations in the Civil Service, 1949, was with- drawn from circulation and re-issued in 1955 with the 40 per cent. formula omitted. Discrimination was, if anything, intensified, and parliamentary redress more difficult to obtain. BOAC let it be known that AEA members were unlikely to get promotion. Though the Minister of Transport, Mr. Watkinson, in answer to a question from Mr. Donald Wade in May, 1957, denied that there was victimisation of Corporation employees arising out of their membership of any particular trade union, and asserted that as to promotion, the Management 'gave equal consideration 'to all members of their staff,' this answer was not borne out in a letter written to Sir Eric Errington, MP, by the Chairman of BOAC, Sir Gerard d'Erlanger, on June 5, 1957. He wrote : . . it is correct to say that it has not been possible to promote AEA members to supervisory positions for a number of years, the reason being that in the opinion • of the Management, AEA members would not be able to obtain effective co-operation from members of other unions.'

This.is both true and untrue. It is true that AEA members have not been given promotion. It is untrue that they cannot get co-operation from members of other unions. AEA members have been supervisors in BOAC for several years and there has been no question of their being unable to get co-operation. In 1953, the AEA lost faith in pledges made in the heat of election campaigns by the Conservative Central Office. They therefore decided to apply a second time for affiliation to the TUC. They applied in June, 1954, and the application was duly rejected with the advice that they should amalgamate with another union which was already affiliated. The AEA therefore amalgamated with the National Engineers' Association, whereupon the NEA was first sus- pended from the Trades Union Congress by the General Council, and then expelled by the Trades Union Congress. The NEA Executive then dis- solved the amalgamation, and in 1957 the AEA applied once more for affiliation. The TUC replied, 'I am to inform you that the General Council are unable to accept your application for affiliation.'

Meanwhile BOAC and BEA continued their campaign of discrimination against AEA. The position at present is as follows : 1. No AEA member will get a job unless he gives an assurance that he will leave the AEA and join a TUC union.

2. No AEA member will be promoted by the Cor- porations unless he undertakes to resign from the AEA.

3. No AEA member employed by BOAC will be sent on a course of instruction to familiarise him with new aircraft coming into service unless he resigns from AEA.

4. No AEA member, apart from members of the AEA Committee, is allowed to work in the new

hangars at London Airport.

These are the facts as far as I have been able to discover them, and I would be most grateful and relieved if anyone can show that they are inaccurate.