[Cowley workers vote overwhelmingly for the £27 claim…]

Scan page 8

Cowley workers vote overwhelmingly for the £27 claim union officials remote from and specified that "normal bargainEighteen months ago Moss Evans and the leadership of every major union forced a national secret ballot on the workforce of Leyland Cars.

This ballot, aided by a massive press campaign in favour of a 'yes' vote, secured a claimed 97% turnout and a 2-1 majority in favour of three proposals:

*Acceptance of company. wide corporate bargaining in place of plant-level bargaining, to be introduced in 1979.

*Parity of wages for the same job in every Leyland plant.

*A common November date for annual pay reviews in each factory.

The reason the ballot stipulated 1979 as the start of corporate bargaining was to give the impression that this major change was not to be rushed in.

But in reality the other two points stood in contradiction to a 1979 start to corporate 'Parity' , This is because part of the 'parity' deal involved the payment of several lump sums of money to Leyland workers during 1978 while the new grading structure on which "parity" was to be based was worked out.

These "splash" payments were worked out on the basis of complete acceptance of the new grading structure.

If the November 1978 pay review had brought some plants larger pay increases than others, all the calculations preparatory to the introduction of 'parity' would have been messed up.

In reality the company had to ensure a common corporation-wide pay increase for November 1978.

So while Leyland workers. thought in 1977 that they were voting to accept corporate bargaining in 1979, the majority of convenors knew i tull well that the company was planning to force it in a year earlier, in 1978!

Their collaboration with this fraud was made easier by the company's 'participation' set up, whereby convenors were bought off through lavish lunches and privileges, and persuaded that they had a "common interest'.: with management.

Indeed top convenors spent the whole of the period from the ballot to November 1978 in talks with management on the proposed grading structúre.

This was done by "National Joint Negotiating Committee" (LCJNC) set up after the ballot.

The company plan was to work out the new grading structure and the rates of pay on Certain of De Leon's ideas, which 'narity' inuld ho estahVYUHIM NO hALUNlished, then add a 5% Phase 4 increase and obtain acceptance on a corporate level.

Every Leyland plant with the exception of Cowley was prepared to accept this manoeuvre.

But in Cowley there had been a principled opposition to the imposition of corporate bargaining which concentrates namar in tha hande of natinnal Louis C. Fraina, not in nn uay ancimarahla tn tha way shop floor in any particular plant.

• Opponents of the plan pointed to the way in which corporate bargaining would further weaken the position of elected shop stewards and convenors, while strengthening the grip of appointed full time officials.

And they pointed also to a clause in ine 1yl/ barot wnicn ing arrangements" should remain in force in 1978.

On this basis a fight began for a plant level claim in Cowley.

The right wing leadership in the Cowley Body Plant attempted to head this off by passing a resolution at the 5/60 TGWU Branch accepting a corporate-level claim.

But in the neighbouring Assembly Plant a claim for a £27 per week increase, protected against inflation through a cost of living clause, and a 35 hour week, was submitted at plant level in August.

At first the company attempted to divert the claim to national negotiations.

"Inevitability"

But the submission of the claim was coupled with the launching of a fight for a national policy of plant lèvel claims by Cowley delegates on the Leyland Cars Combine Committee.

And while fighting for convenors to adopt this policy, meetings of Leyland workers and stewards began to be called in Birmingham by the ad-hoc body 'Leyland Stewards for the The first of these meetings confirmed at once that the leadership of every Midlands plant had accepted the "inev¡tability" of a corporate claim.

But it also revealed that ail the left' groups claiming to offer a 'revolutionary' lead to Leyland workers had also accepted this as "inevitable". , on the basis that they did not feel strong enough to change it!

The first argument was therefore whether we should abandon the 1978 review and wait for 1979 to come round or whether-as the Workers Socialist League members