05.09.1996

Fighting the Labour bosses

Unison members in Hammersmith recently won an important dispute with the Labour council over the draconian sickness procedure, the ‘capability code’.

The original code was introduced in 1991 to punish anyone unfortunate enough to be ill. Any worker with more than 10 days’ sick leave in a year could be called to a meeting when a new target would be set, and if this was not met it could lead finally to dismissal. The procedure has been consistently abused and has depended for its interpretations on individual relationships with management - if they did not like you, they had the perfect tool for getting rid of you.

Earlier this year the caring Labour council decided that they were on to a winner and announced changes to the code: they intended to reduce the number of trigger days from 10 to eight, and to remove the right to union representation and appeal from all stages apart from the final, dismissal stage.

It had been clear from the start that the procedure was introduced as a cost-cutting exercise, and despite feeble protestations in the past that this was not the case, Labour leader Andrew Slaughter finally came out in July and admitted that they could not afford the present levels of sickness. He failed to mention the fact that successive years of Labour-implemented cuts have resulted in staffing at minimal levels and staff morale at an all time low - no wonder we are all sick!

It was also clear that this was the thin end of the wedge - if we did not fight this, it would give them the green light to tear up all other hard-won agreements - maternity, nominated carer and dependency leave would all be under threat. Slaughter himself has often said that he believes our conditions of service to be “too generous”.

In June, the whole branch was balloted to take six days’ strike action over a two-month period and a group of key workers in the council tax section were also balloted to go on indefinite all-out strike. Both ballots were won resoundingly and the action was well supported, with the numbers coming out increasingly as time went on. Significantly, this is the first time that both Hammersmith branches (former Nupe and Nalgo) have taken joint action. In the past, local Nupe leaders, well know for their close friendships with the Labour group, have attempted to undermine Nalgo action, but this time they have been clear where their loyalties should lie.

At the beginning of August a joint branch meeting voted to ballot for a further four days’ strike and to bring further groups of key workers out on indefinite strike. This decision was sufficient to bring the councillors back to the negotiating table and, after the fifth day of branch-wide strike and the action about to escalate, they gave in.

Although it has not been a complete victory, it has been a significant one. The number of trigger days has been reduced to nine, but we have won back union representation and the right to appeal at every stage.

More importantly, the Labour bosses have been sent a clear message that workers are not prepared to lie back and take everything they care to throw at us. In addition, front-line workers who canvassed public opinion during the dispute found overwhelming support for our action. Labour may be confident of victory in the forthcoming general election, but the electorate is not so convinced.

Julie Mills