학술논문
4 The Act’s institutions
Document Type
Book
Author
Source
Who governs Britain?: Trade unions, the Conservative Party and the failure of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. :86-113
Subject
Language
Abstract
Chapter 4 addresses a notable gap in the literature by exploring the period during which the government built its new institutional framework. The chapter argues that establishing credible and respected institutions was essential to legitimise the Act’s legal rules, but the process was bedevilled by internal tensions and disagreements about presentational aspects of reform between ministers, the ‘lower-levels’ of the core executive and officials working in the new institutions. The chapter provides insights into the institutional formal rules and informal norms that ministers hoped would secure institutional credibility and the perception of independence. This was a critical part of a wider framing contest over the merits of reform. By tracing the staggered introduction of the Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers (Phase 1), the Commission of Industrial Relations (Phase 2), the Industrial Arbitration Board and the National Industrial Relations Court (Phase 3), the chapter discusses the informal mechanisms of influence and control that developed as the day-to-day practicalities of institutional ‘independence’ dominated internal debates. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the Act’s ‘non-role’ during the first miners’ strike (December 1971 – February 1972), indicating the limits of ‘depoliticised’ strategies at moments of heightened tensions. This section provides the first detailed account of the discussions that took place surrounding use of the Act’s emergency procedures in this dispute and explains why ministers were so cautious about intervening for fear of ‘repoliticising’ the government’s role in industrial relations before the Act had settled in.
Who governs Britain? examines the 1970–74 Conservative government’s attempt to impose a formal legal framework on British trade unions for the first time. It explores how, in the name of solving Britain’s strike ‘problem’ and reversing a prolonged period of relative economic decline, this attempt to regulate collective bargaining arrangements descended into farce. The Act is known as a policy fiasco. This book explains why. The book provides significant new insights through extensive use of primary sources from the National Archives, Modern Records Centre and Conservative Party Archives. It employs a novel, multi-dimensional framework to analyse the government’s failure to disengage from – and thus ‘depoliticise’ – this controversial process of reform. The analysis illustrates how inadequate drafting, flawed assumptions about internal trade union dynamics, strategic failings in policy implementation and tensions linked to complex interdependencies at the heart of the state apparatus undermined the government’s strategy and contributed to its ultimate downfall. The book argues that this attempt to pacify trade unions was thrown into doubt when presumptions about trade union deference to, and respect for, the rule of law proved to be unfounded. The National Industrial Relations Court was widely perceived to be an extension of government and therefore illegitimate. The empirical chapters are organised both thematically and chronologically, analysing key events in the Act’s short but tempestuous existence to provide fresh insights into the industrial battles that followed. Who governs Britain? considers how these events influenced Conservative attitudes towards trade unions in the 1980s, shaping the industrial relations landscape today.
Who governs Britain? examines the 1970–74 Conservative government’s attempt to impose a formal legal framework on British trade unions for the first time. It explores how, in the name of solving Britain’s strike ‘problem’ and reversing a prolonged period of relative economic decline, this attempt to regulate collective bargaining arrangements descended into farce. The Act is known as a policy fiasco. This book explains why. The book provides significant new insights through extensive use of primary sources from the National Archives, Modern Records Centre and Conservative Party Archives. It employs a novel, multi-dimensional framework to analyse the government’s failure to disengage from – and thus ‘depoliticise’ – this controversial process of reform. The analysis illustrates how inadequate drafting, flawed assumptions about internal trade union dynamics, strategic failings in policy implementation and tensions linked to complex interdependencies at the heart of the state apparatus undermined the government’s strategy and contributed to its ultimate downfall. The book argues that this attempt to pacify trade unions was thrown into doubt when presumptions about trade union deference to, and respect for, the rule of law proved to be unfounded. The National Industrial Relations Court was widely perceived to be an extension of government and therefore illegitimate. The empirical chapters are organised both thematically and chronologically, analysing key events in the Act’s short but tempestuous existence to provide fresh insights into the industrial battles that followed. Who governs Britain? considers how these events influenced Conservative attitudes towards trade unions in the 1980s, shaping the industrial relations landscape today.