WeeklyWorker

26.08.1999

Could Steve Hedley have kept his job?

In July 1998 over 100 maintenance workers took strike action in defence of sacked RMT shop steward Steve Hedley. The strike was defeated and Hedley remained sacked. With trade union struggles at an all-time low and strike figures at the lowest level ever recorded, it would seem that, at the moment, the employers are ‘too strong’. The case of Steve Hedley would appear to back such views. But did it? Mark Metcalf gives his opinion

The decision in June 1999 of Steve Hedley to accept a full-time development officer’s job with the building workers’ union Ucatt must have marked the end of the campaign to force GTRM to reinstate him to his track maintenance job from which he was dismissed in July 1998.

To all intents and purposes the struggle ended on Monday August 3 at the height of a strike by over 100 maintenance workers when Hedley, RMT (Rail Maritime Transport) shop steward at Euston station and the RMT Harlesden branch secretary, preferred to rely on the bureaucracy of the RMT and its acolytes in ‘the British left’ rather than rank and file railworkers who he had already inspired to take action. By doing so Steve Hedley turned his back on his closest supporters and now he has clearly decided that ‘if you can’t beat them [the bureaucracy] then join them’.

Until July 1998 Steve Hedley was employed by GTRM (GEC-Tarmac Rail Maintenance) and had worked on the railway for 10 years. He was dismissed in the middle of a national pay dispute. One year later he was appointed to a full-time development officer’s post in Ucatt. He is now a part of the trade union bureaucracy he once recognised as a barrier to workers’ struggles: “Rank and file workers who are prepared to act independently of trade union bureaucracies can take on their employers and win” (S Hedley A case for trade union rank and file resistance Colin Roach Centre, 1995, p46).

It will be no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of the trade union movement that Steve Hedley has taken such a job. There are numerous examples of militants who have been critical of the trade union bureaucracy, but sooner or later become a part of it. As a result of their personal improvements in pay, working conditions and status they cut themselves off from the people they once represented. Steve Hedley had recognised this: “The history of so-called leftwingers being elected and then moving rightwards is such a long one that the policy of so-called broad lefts must finally be scrapped” (Harlesden RMT branch leaflet, 1995).

In Steve Hedley’s case because of his sacking it could and probably will be argued that he has ‘no other place to go’; or ‘who else would give him a job?’ Others will argue that he ‘fought a good fight’ and should not be blamed for looking after his personal interests. Certainly Steve Hedley has much greater standing than most people, but nevertheless he is not perfect and it is my view that he did have ‘some other place to go’. It is the aim of this article to demonstrate that this was the case and that GTRM could have been forced to ‘give him back his job’.

I argue this after having had the privilege of working with Steve Hedley between 1995 and 1998 with the aim of defending and improving the pay and working conditions of railworkers which, it was recognised, required raising political consciousness. I did this through our joint involvement in the Colin Roach Centre, based in Hackney. Despite the ongoing capitalist offensive continuing to destroy workers’ pay, conditions and rights, it was still possible in this period to carry out activities which were incredibly successful. These helped to increase the self-confidence of some railworkers to challenge management’s plans to restructure their industry. Steve was the key man in this.

These actions included opposing arrogant managers, some of whom were quickly moved to different jobs, organising unofficial walk-outs in defence of threatened workers and secretly working with papers such as The Mirror, resulting in two major articles on rail track safety which forced debates in the House of Commons and statements from government ministers. There were also attempts made to establish a Railworkers Rank and File Group which floundered.

During the period 1995-98 the political profile of Steve Hedley himself was increased, giving him an important leadership role amongst railworkers, who would also have been aware of his expressed contempt for the RMT bureaucracy whose fear before the anti-trade union laws and the employers’ powers can be demonstrated:

“If there’s one thing that the recent catalogue of disasters have shown is that railworkers cannot rely on Aslef or RMT executives to fight the employers” (Harlesden RMT branch and Colin Roach Centre, joint leaflet, 1996).

As a result of the activities organised between 1995 and 1998 management clearly decided that Steve Hedley must be got rid of and there was a constant round of attacks on him for carrying out his functions as a shop steward and safety representative. All of these were defeated.

However, GTRM finally got its way when it sacked him on July 29 1998. The dismissal arose from an incident on the picket line at Euston station on July 2, when a contractor’s van was driven at striking rail maintenance workers.

The picket was in support of a national pay dispute, taken after a ballot under the anti-trade union laws, and backed by the RMT. The fact that there was a strike at all cannot be solely attributed to Steve Hedley, as there were certainly major grievances amongst maintenance staff, but he was a major driving force in getting action to take place. It would not be stretching the issue to argue that his speech at a special conference in Doncaster in March 1998 won over reluctant activists to strike action, which was to involve coming out for two, three or four days at selected times and dates.

On July 3 1998, a contractor picked out Steve as the person who had damaged a wing mirror on the van which had been driven at pickets the day before. The contractor described the person who broke the mirror as wearing a bomber jacket, faded blue jeans and brown boots. Steve Hedley was able to provide photographic evidence, in the form of a colour picture from the previous day’s picket which had appeared in the Newsline daily paper. This showed him wearing a blue jumper, dark blue jeans and black shoes. He was not wearing a jacket. Management did not have a case.

At the disciplinary hearing on July 29 management ignored the evidence and in less than one hour he was sacked. With the police ‘pursuing their inquiries’ and the officer in charge on holiday for three weeks, management were asked to wait until the completion of any criminal case, but they refused. Subsequently Steve Hedley was to be charged, but the case against him was dismissed when it came to court. There are obvious parallels with the cases of hundreds of miners who lost their jobs during the 1984-5 dispute. Originally Steve Hedley had been suspended from work, but he was quickly reinstated when a large number of maintenance staff took strike action in sympathy. He was then suspended again despite promises that he could work at the Willesden depot whilst they made inquiries. Workers at his depot at Euston remained on strike, but others returned to work, leading Steve himself to suggest to Euston workers that they return to work and await the outcome of any disciplinary hearings before taking further action.

The RMT promised Steve “full support” in any fight to get his job back and the assistant general secretary Bob Crow agreed to represent him at any disciplinary hearings. What transpired, however, was very far from “full support”. With Steve facing a possible criminal prosecution, he needed a solicitor, especially as management were intent on using the police investigation as an excuse to have him sacked. Furthermore, statements from witnesses needed collecting. In fact, it took the RMT three weeks to get Steve a lawyer. There never was the evidence to charge Steve with criminal damage. But the threat of a conviction gave management enough leverage to sack him. If the union had appointed a solicitor immediately it is likely that the police would not have pursued the matter.

With Bob Crow agreeing to represent Steve Hedley, it appeared that he would get properly represented at any disciplinary hearings. Chance would be a fine thing. Bob Crow did not meet Steve to discuss the case in the two weeks after his suspension. He agreed to see him on the afternoon of July 28, one day before the disciplinary hearing. Witness statements which should have been taken were not. When Steve Hedley, in the company of Graham Smith, turned up, Bob Crow was in a meeting and, frustrated at being forced to wait, Steve Hedley knocked on the door to ask when it would be finished. He was told to “get out” and, desperate for assistance, he was taken to see a solicitor who gave him what advice he could. Only later did Bob Crow see him.

In the weeks between his suspension and dismissal the RMT made no attempt to get any press or TV coverage about the case. No press release was issued and the union did not, it would appear, send a circular to branch secretaries or stewards. The Colin Roach Centre did send out a press release which gained coverage in leftwing newspapers as well as a couple of local newspapers.

Throughout his period of suspension Steve was not inactive in pursuing the struggle for improved conditions for railworkers, and on the evening of July 25-26 he organised a picket at Hither Green in south London, where contractors employed by Balfour Beatty were breaking an overtime ban amongst rail maintenance staff. Although the local shop steward, a member of the revolutionary group which sells the American Militant, failed to honour her promise to turn up, this did not prevent the pickets from turning away all potential strikebreakers. This, in spite of a police presence! Jobs in and around the London Bridge area were cancelled. Balfour Beatty lost hundreds of thousands of pounds in penalties for lost work.

As a leaflet produced after the event said, “The lessons from this are clear - where waverers are confronted and talked to directly they can be convinced to stay on strike ... and the need for effective picketing has never been more apparent: it is the key to winning this dispute.” Steve Hedley was the co-author of the leaflet. As events were to prove, a more accurate statement could not have been made.

As it was expected that GTRM would sack Steve Hedley on July 29, a meeting was arranged for the following evening in Willesden to discuss what support railworkers could offer in any fight for reinstatement. Steve was joined on the platform by RMT executive members from the West Midlands and Scotland, as well as Brian Higgins from the Building Worker Group, with whom a close working relationship had been forged over a number of years and who was to give an inspiring speech about the need to fight the employers whilst not expecting the full-time officials of any union to do the same. Brian Higgins is a Ucatt member who has been victimised and blacklisted by the building employers. He has also faced constant attacks from the officials of Ucatt, including the general secretary, George Brumwell.

It was Brumwell who effectively appointed Hedley to the development officer’s post in Ucatt. This was a major slap in the face for Brian Higgins and the Building Worker Group, who have been passionately opposed for 25 years to the bureaucratisation of Ucatt, which includes appointment of officials rather than their election by members. Brian Higgins was, at the time of the meeting, being defended by trade unionists in Britain and overseas against an attack on him by Dominic Hehir, a full-time Ucatt official who had taken out a high court writ for libel against Higgins for daring to criticise him for refusing to support or represent Ucatt shop steward and safety representative John Jones.

Jones and plumber Terry Mason were sacked in October 1995 after refusing to accept a transfer from Southwark council’s direct labour organisation to a private building contractor, Botes. When they mounted a picket line no DLO workers would cross and only after reaching an agreement that a mass meeting would take place was the picket lifted. This promise was broken and so the picket was reinstated. DLO workers still refused to cross but the intervention of Ucatt convenor steward Tony O’Brien helped force them across.

The Socialist Workers Party publicly backed the convenor’s scabbing and were chucked off the picket line after telling those on it it wasn’t one! The group of Workers Revolutionary Party members based around Workers Press, now no longer in existence, then attacked Jones and Mason, even allowing O’Brien its middle two pages on December 9 to boast of “leading” the workers across the picket line. O’Brien then tried to get Ucatt to discipline Jones and Brian Higgins but failed.

Years later two separate industrial tribunals decided that both workers were unfairly dismissed and they received compensation; making a nonsense of those ‘leftwingers’ who have lined up with the bosses and the bureaucrats against them. Their actions then have obvious parallels with how they acted during the struggle against GTRM and the RMT bureaucracy during the defence of Steve Hedley.

Brian Higgins, in his struggle with Hehir, stated that he would go to jail rather than surrender the freedom to criticise trade union officials, when this was justified. Hehir had two choices - either take Brian to court or back off. In 1999 he backed down. Steve Hedley had been fully involved in the campaign to defend Brian Higgins and played a progressive role throughout that period. This makes it all the more disappointing that Steve Hedley has agreed to accept an appointed position within Ucatt. It is insulting, offensive and insensitive, to say the least.

At the meeting on July 29 it was agreed it would be foolish to wait until the RMT organised any action. (The RMT’s official support centred on the claim that it would not resolve their pay dispute until Steve was reinstated. In fact if the pay claim had been resolved it would have been illegal for the RMT to continue to organise any action on behalf of Steve Hedley without a ballot.) The outcome of an appeal hearing or, worse, an industrial tribunal was many months away.

The RMT did not issue a press release or seek to publicise Steve Hedley’s dismissal. Neither did any of the ‘leftwing’ members on the RMT executive committee - such as Pat Sikorski, Greg Tucker, Bob North or Bob Crow - ask to get involved in any actions which fell outside of the anti-trade union laws. They were not, at this stage willing to denounce workers who might break the law, but neither were they willing to personally involve themselves in organising such action.

At the meeting in Willesden it was agreed to build on the actions of Euston RMT members who had continually demonstrated a willingness to defend their union steward. The plan was to hold a picket at Euston station of maintenance workers on August 3, move quickly on to other maintenance workers at Willesden, then Stonebridge Park and up to Watford. If successful, over 100 maintenance workers would be on strike and then there would be a chance to expand on the numbers by organising flying pickets nationwide.

With the news, received later that week, that those signalworkers starting at 2pm at Euston station ‘would not cross a picket line’, there was a real chance to smash management’s and the government’s plans to make railworkers pay for the catastrophe of privatisation: whilst management can draft in scabs to replace maintenance workers, they have much more difficulty in replacing signalworkers, without whom no trains can move.

Armed with leaflets and a burning sense of injustice, pickets assembled at Euston station early on August 3 and, after making sure that no-one crossed, moved off quickly to Willesden Junction, where SWP member Billy Ashcroft was a shop steward. Ashcroft had been dismissed only weeks earlier, but a wildcat strike by other maintenance workers, organised by Steve Hedley and others from Euston, forced management to reinstate him.

Pickets were left at Willesden Junction. We had missed some of the early shift who had gone to work. It was later reported that of the workers represented by Ashcroft only one person had gone on strike. Whether Ashcroft was on strike is not clear: he was not at work, but he could have been on holiday as he was due to go the following day. When we arrived at Stonebridge Park, maintenance workers were just getting ready to go on the tracks and the management who were around tried to prevent us talking with them. A quick meeting, the distribution of the leaflets and the support of the shop steward produced a fantastic response and an immediate walkout.

Some of the strikers then joined with us and off we went to Watford, where our arrival was announced by the display of a large and impressive banner, stating ‘Reinstate Steve Hedley’. We were joined by pickets from Euston and Willesden junction. It was clear that there was a reluctance to take any action, as the view was that the recent strikes had not resulted in any concessions from management. Some of the workers were on the track and not due back until much later. It was agreed to wait for them to return to the depot before asking them to go on strike. Pickets stood at the gate, just outside the main entrance to Watford station. The weather was not too pleasant, and some supporters because of work commitments drifted off.

It was a couple of hours before word got round to workers on the track that something was happening back at the depot, but when they did return a meeting was arranged. Steve was clearly under pressure from Billy Ashcroft to prevent either Terry Dunn, an ex-miner sacked and imprisoned during the 1984-5 national miners’ strike, or myself from joining him in speaking to the workers. We allowed ourselves to be excluded. What was also becoming a problem was the length of time it was taking to persuade the men at the Watford depot to come out on strike. There was a real fear that we would miss the 2pm signalworkers at Euston station.

After what seemed forever the meeting ended with the great news that the workers had agreed to down tools, but - and it was a very big but - they had made clear that they would only agree to stay out on strike if they got official support from the RMT. It has never been possible to find out whether the workers had put forward this argument themselves or whether Ashcroft had put the idea forward first and the workers had latched on to this in desperation - or in the certainty that the union would not give such support, as was to be proved.

To make matters worse Ashcroft had set up a meeting at the RMT headquarters, Unity House, to ‘get official support’ at 2pm in the main hall, where we were told members of the executive committee would meet strikers and their supporters. This was the very time when we were due to picket out the signalworkers at Euston - disaster, we still had the chance to go to see the signalworkers, but it was obvious that the strikers had been persuaded to look to the bureaucracy for direction, when, in fact, they had already shown they had the power to take on management. About 40 of the 120 on strike went to Unity House.

All the lessons learned at Hither Green and throughout August 3 were to be ignored. It should be recorded that history has shown that workers very rarely, if at all, make official support a condition of spontaneously downing tools. These questions always come up and are raised after such actions by the fainthearts and those of a bureaucratic persuasion looking for a way out.

No-one from the Watford depot came to Unity House, where strikers and a large body of supporters were met by North and Tucker. They made clear, at the very start, that they were not representing the executive committee. The best they could promise was to take the strikers’ case to “the exec” when it met the following day, but - as they honestly put it - “don’t hold your breath”. The implication was clear: the union would not support unofficial action. The strikers, who had been persuaded by Ashcroft that they could only win the dispute by getting official support, sat almost silently and most looked thoroughly despondent. There were some who did attempt to argue with North and Tucker, but the pair had the typical argument of left bureaucrats that ‘if it was up to them ...’ But of course it wasn’t!

When North and Tucker - a member of Socialist Outlook, which on paper professes to be a revolutionary socialist organisation - were asked what they would be prepared to do apart from putting the strikers’ case to “the exec”, there was an audible silence. It was put to them that they should be willing to come on the picket line and argue for workers to take unofficial action. Would they be willing to appeal to workers who elected them? Would they put their names to leaflets calling for secondary action? Well, “if it was up to them”, but, of course, they had to be bound by the democratic wishes of “the exec” who we already knew would not support the action taken, never mind sanction any more.

By their actions both showed that at periods when major events in the class struggle occur the subordination of the left wing of the trade union bureaucracy to the right wing is pronounced. As long as they have no practical obligations they can remain left and even use socialist rhetoric, but once the need for action arises these leftwing leaders concede leadership to the right wing or centre.

The argument was put to the strikers that they had been conned into coming to the meeting and plans should be organised for stepping up the picketing for the following day. In fact, the strikers drifted off to the pub. Morale and confidence had disappeared. Basically they had been persuaded to trust the bureaucracy, or rather the ‘left’ side of it, and now that they knew this trust was misplaced, they could not stomach much more. At this crucial point only Steve Hedley could possibly have repaired the damage already done, but he himself was not willing or able to put forward arguments for stepping up the picketing. When others did so he remained silent.

As events were to prove, the next morning was crucial. In fact, what happened was that the 20 strikers at Euston remained on strike, Jamie from Willesden stayed out, Stonebridge Park strikers were met by the police and management and forced back to work and at Watford the disarray had a demoralising effect - not least on Steve, who was unable to tell workers whether he was asking for strike action or not.

Some workers stopped their cars and asked, “Steve, what’s up? Are we on strike?” He honestly did not know what to tell them. Billy Ashcroft went on two weeks holiday to Greece, thus leaving the man who had been responsible for him having the money in his pocket to go on holiday in the shit. Meanwhile the RMT issued a statement repudiating the workers’ actions of the previous day.

It was clear that Steve Hedley had lost his job and there was now no possibility of him getting it back. Steve himself said so to those closest to him. Statements by the RMT that their dispute over wages would not end until he was reinstated turned reality on its head. If management could sack the leading militant then which workers were going to be willing to put their heads on the chopping block and actually take part in action which would force management to concede to demands for proper wages and conditions? The answer was no-one. Steve proposed to the Euston strikers that they go back to work whilst attempts were made to try and get people back out at a future date. Sadly, we will all be dead before such a date arises.

After this a support group for Steve Hedley was established which on paper had the aim of seeing him reinstated, although its actions almost exclusively concentrated on lobbies and protests outside various rail company and government buildings, leafleting and flyposting, the passing of resolutions at trade union branch meetings, collections and gaining press coverage. The support group would not, could not, did not commit themselves to organising those actions which had temporarily threatened management’s ‘right to manage’, brought out over 100 workers in defiance of the anti-trade union laws and threatened to inspire thousands more, and caused such outright fear amongst the RMT bureaucracy that the union’s executive committee had been forced to send a letter of repudiation to all the strikers and denounce them in public in order to protect themselves from being sued by the rail companies under the anti-trade union laws.

“However, the other side of the affair is the manner in which the Aslef executive, followed hours later by the RMT executive, capitulated to the courts. Rather than telling them to ‘get stuffed’ it was time to express disappointment and dismay. If the unions had been formed by the likes of such people, there would never have been unions!” (S Hedley, RMT Harlesden branch and Colin Roach Centre, joint leaflet, 1995).

Despite the RMT executive demonstrating their treachery, the support group refused to bar members of them from the group, and members from a range of far left organisations waxed lyrical about the need to “put pressure on the bureaucracy” and of “forcing them to fight”. Weeks later posters bearing the picture of Steve appeared in and around Euston. They had been put there by the SWP. Meanwhile Ashcroft remains a member of this organisation - no finer example of how it has degenerated could possibly be found. The SWP was not excluded from the support group even though the role of one of their members was a disgrace.

We now have the nauseating spectacle of the Steve Hedley Support Group establishing the Strike Support Group and a major article in The Big Issue,in which Steve as the spokesperson attacks those who “want to talk about dead Russians” - which, bearing in mind that those who set the group up are either self-expressed Stalinists or Trotskyists, is a little strange - and “sectarians”, which I can only assume is a defensive reaction to anyone who may want to discuss the role of the bureaucracy in industrial disputes such as his own, as well as once self-proclaimed industrial militants who decide to join them.

There are many lessons which can be learned from the experiences I have described. Perhaps the most important are the following:

The following day it would have been possible to have moved on to Milton Keynes and Northampton and picket out workers there, with whom contacts had already been established. I have also discovered that workers in other parts of England and Scotland were waiting to take action. It is vital that pickets keep moving and do not lose momentum during any dispute. “We cannot expect the bureaucrats to link up the disputes across the country, as this will be illegal. But there is nothing to stop a rank and file organisation doing this, ignoring the bosses, courts and bureaucrats” - Steve in 1995.

Amongst those being sent copies of this article are Steve Hedley, Greg Tucker, Billy Ashcroft, the Strike Support Group and the Steve Hedley Support Group. It will also be made available to railworkers, as ultimately it is their views which are the most important. All five of those listed above and the organisations they represent are invited to defend themselves either in print and/or by engaging in public debate.

I would propose that any replies to this article are sent to the Weekly Worker for publication. Finally I would challenge Steve and the Strike Support Group to debate the contents of this article with myself and Brian Higgins of the Building Worker Group at a public meeting later this year.

Update

Since this article was completed the following has taken place:

  1. The RMT did not take Steve’s case to an industrial tribunal on the basis that GTRM had a video of someone like Steve crossing the track without permission. This is a criminal offence. However, this was not the reason he was sacked, so the decision not to take the case to the tribunal cannot be justified.
  2. The maintenance companies have made a pay offer and the RMT is recommending acceptance. Formally the union’s position remains that until Steve and another steward are reinstated the dispute will continue.

The Strike Support Group has agreed to discuss the contents of this document and decide whether to reply in print and/or at a public meeting.