CHRYSLER LIMITED (DISPUTE) (Hansard, 11 June 1973)

§ Mr. Edelman (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the strike at Chrysler Ltd, Coventry.

§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan)
Some 4,500 employees at the company's Ryton plant have been on strike since 31st May in support of a claim that 500 day shift workers in the body shop should be paid for 1½ hours lost when management stopped the assembly line on 24th May. This dispute follows an inter-union dispute at the Linwood plant earlier in May. A strike by AUEW millwrights in protest against the employment by a contractor of TGWU millwrights led in turn to a further strike by members of the TGWU at that plant who claimed that they should be paid for the time lost under a guaranteed week agreement. These disputes led to a shortage of sheet metal components at Ryton where assembly workers had to be laid off on 22nd and 23rd May.
993 Following the resolution of the Linwood dispute employees at Ryton were recalled on Thursday 24th May. During that shift the production line was stopped five times to allow discussions on the quality of the work being produced, the company claiming that two out of every three car bodies were having to be rejected. Finally, management stopped the line 1½ hours before the end of the shift. The succeeding night shift worked normally and quality standards were maintained. The following day the day shift went on strike following the company's refusal to pay for the 1½ hours lost.
After the Spring Bank Holiday a normal day shift was worked on Wednesday 30th May by the employees previously on night shift, but when the employees in dispute reported this time for the night shift they went on strike when again refused payment for the time lost. Other employees at the plant joined the strike the following day.
The company is prepared to discuss the issue following a return to normal working, but the shop stewards concerned are demanding full payment for the time lost as a condition for a return to work.
I am keeping closely in touch with the situation, and the conciliation facilities of my Department are of course always available.

§ Mr. Edelman
Is it not tragic that this dispute has escalated from a shop floor disagreement about 1½ hours' pay into a major national problem? In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman discourage those administering this firm from using words such as "sabotage" and making threats in the Henry Ford manner that they will remove investment overseas unless the workers toe the line?

§ Mr. Heffer
They will do it, anyway.

§ Mr. Edelman
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an independent investigation to be made into the origins of the dispute in order to prevent the dispute from developing in an even more tragic and unhappy manner?

§ Mr. Macmillan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the General Secretary of the TGWU that the earlier that these people can talk about the point at issue in this dispute, the better. However, I should make it plain that management 994 representatives have not uttered threats about exporting the investment. They have pointed out, as they did a year ago to the union concerned, that in order to justify further investment in this country it would be necessary for productivity and regularity of work at least to match those of the other countries where they could invest.

§ Mrs. Sally Oppenheim
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the allegations made both in the Economist and in the Sunday Express about industrial sabotage and about attacks on the homes of those who did not wish to strike in Swansea are true, this is doing great harm not only to the company but to our export trade and to the trade union movement itself, the majority of whose members are moderate and sensible men and women of good will? If the allegations are true, will my right hon. Friend institute an inquiry and expose these tactics as soon as possible?

§ Mr. Macmillan
At this stage I do not think that an inquiry would do any good in resolving this dispute. It is fair to point out to my hon. Friend that, following the day shift which was in dispute, the night shift worked normally and produced perfectly adequate work. After the Spring Bank Holiday when the members of that night shift became the day shift they again worked normally. It is among the one shift that there is trouble.

§ Mr. Prentice
Is the Secretary of State aware that the kind of statement that he made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) will have a profoundly disturbing effect? The right hon. Gentleman gave a very one-sided account of a great deal of the detail leading to the stoppage but failed completely to mention the effect of the threats uttered by the Chrysler Company, which have had a devastating effect on the situation?
May I put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, does his information confirm information which I obtained about an hour ago that the offer made by the union to the Chrysler Company about talks at either national or local level has been completely rejected by the Chrysler management which says that its attitude about a return to work precludes its representatives from talking to union officials 995 at any level? If that is so, will not the right hon. Gentleman tell the Chrysler management to come off it, that he regards it as urgent that there should be talks between the two sides, and that he expects both sides to try to reach a settlement?
Secondly, and arising out of that question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not good enough in a matter of this seriousness for him to act as a spectator? Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot obtain direct talks between the two sides, will he not consider the other method of securing a forum in which to discuss the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the organisation known as the Motor Council, which was established to provide a bridge between the two sides in crises of this nature and which I understand has not met for a long time? Why not?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to Chrysler and other American companies which invest in this country that he, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, expects them to deal intelligently with their labour problems and that what is required is a patient and sophisticated approach in this very difficult industry? There is no short cut by way of confrontation, and the clumsy threats in the Chrysler statement were bound to lead to serious trouble.

§ Mr. Macmillan
First, the position of both the management and the shop stewards is clear. I accept that it is that which causes the difficulty. The management has made it plain that it is not prepared to discuss the issue until there has been a return to work. The shop stewards have also made it plain that they are not prepared to contemplate returning to work until full payment for the time lost has been made. That is the position as I understand it.
Secondly, I will certainly look into the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the Motor Council. I must admit that I had not yet considered that.
Thirdly, whatever view one may take about the public utterances by the Chrysler management, it is right to recognise that this is not a new position. It was discussed between the management and the unions concerned a very long time ago.

§ Mr. Grieve
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is tragic, at a time of great expansion in the national economy, that that expansion should be put in jeopardy by strikes not only at Ryton but at factories of component producers in the motor industry? Will he make the facilities of the conciliation machinery of his Department available not only at Ryton but also in those strikes in the production of components which are likely to put motor production in jeopardy elsewhere in the West Midlands?

§ Mr. Macmillan
There are five other disputes of various kinds within the motor car industry. I am happy to tell my hon. and learned Friend that the two sides concerned are either meeting or are about to meet to resolve the issues involved in all cases. This is the one remaining dispute. I agree that it is tragic that it should occur at a time when expansion in the motor car industry, following the expansion of the economy, should otherwise be looked for.

§ Mr. William Price
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of the trouble at Ryton is due to a union fear, rightly or wrongly, that if Chrysler had the opportunity it would move out of the Coventry-Rugby region altogether? Does he believe that American-sponsored threats and counter-threats will create industrial peace in the car industry, particularly coming a few weeks after the management at Ryton had written to all the employees thanking them for their splendid efforts? What has happened in the meantime?
Finally, I should like to refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) which was not answered. Will the right hon. Gentleman set up a straightforward independent inquiry into industrial relations at that plant?

§ Mr. Macmillan
If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of an inquiry by the CIR into general industrial relations in the company concerned, may I point out that it is possible for the CIR to examine and report on ways in which industrial relations in an industry might be improved in the longer term but that it is not part of its rôle to inquire into current disputes of this kind with a view to bringing them to an end. These are two separate issues.
997 Regarding the threats, the hon. Gentleman almost answered his own question when he pointed out that the management had written to the labour force. I think it is wrong to regard this is as a threat. It is a statement by the management referring not to current investment or development of existing factories but to new investment about which the company has been in discussion with the unions concerned pointing out that it was difficult to justify continuing investment when the level of productivity and the security of production was in its view less than it could obtain by putting that investment elsewhere.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what was not a clumsy threat, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) dubbed it, was the statement by the employers that this company has the worst strike record of any plant of theirs anywhere in the world? Is it reasonable to expect the company to pour new investment money into this country having regard to the dismal record of the past?

§ Mr. Macmillan
My hon. Friend points out that there have been difficulties at this site. Indeed, the company claims that in the first quarter of this year it has lost close on 4,000 vehicles and £2.7 million in revenue due to internal disputes at Ryton. During the last six months, the company claims to have lost 17 per cent. of its scheduled production, amounting to 17,000 cars in all plants because of internal disputes.
I do not wish to seek to allocate blame, but that is a difficult background against which to see further development. It is very much in the interests of all concerned to try to resolve the problem as quickly and reasonably as possible. I do not think that trying to allocate blame across the Floor of the House or calling people names will help very much one way or the other.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unions have already shown their willingness to improve industrial relations? In February they took the initiative and conducted a detailed report which involved union district officials virtually living at the plants, going through each area and producing a 998 detailed report, including the body in white section, as a result of which the company has done nothing at all?
Is he also aware that the only reaction to the dispute by the Chrysler management at Ryton has been to lock the gates, to refuse to talk, and not to pay holiday money? Will he disregard some of the more stupid and nonsensical allegations of sabotage made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) and find out why the Chrysler management will not talk?

§ Mr. Macmillan
Obviously I do not accept all that the hon. Gentleman said. It is most unfortunate, at a time of expansion and when there was evidence of improving industrial relations, that this incident should have taken place, particularly as there is also evidence—I put it no higher—that a relatively small number of the work people concerned were affected. This matter has escalated. It is of great importance not only to the country but to the company and the work people involved that we should try to work towards a solution and get a discussion of the underlying problems as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Tugendhat
Is my right hon. Friend aware that as soon as Chrysler had taken over the outstanding equity in Chrysler (UK) it stopped exporting complete cars to the United States and replaced the cars that it had been exporting to the United States with cars from Japan? Is he also aware that not one of the American-owned motor industries in this country is exporting complete cars to the United States, whereas British Leyland's exports have been rising rapidly? Therefore, in view of this situation and uniquely bad labour relations in the motor industry, does my right hon. Friend feel that there is justification for a much-wider ranging inquiry than that which he has in mind?

§ Mr. Macmillan
Yes, I certainly would not rule out the possibility of a further and more wide-ranging inquiry. On the other hand, I should point out that inquiries undertaken by the CIR into industrial relations in an industry are geared to the longer term. The CIR is not geared to inquire into a current dispute as a means towards resolving it.

§ Mr. Buchan
As the right hon. Gentleman places great weight on the circumstances arising at Linwood in my constituency, may I point out that that problem was solved by discussion at local level? Will he encourage the same procedure without pre-conditions to be adopted in the factory in England?
Secondly, will he move a little further? As I understand his last statement, he has agreed to a generalised inquiry. Will he gear it up, to use his term, and have an inquiry on this issue?
Thirdly, does lie agree, as everyone else in the country has agreed, that the letter that was sent out was intended as a threat, is seen as a threat, and ought to be withdrawn?

§ Mr. Macmillan
I did not say that I would agree to a general inquiry. I said that I would look into the possibility of a general inquiry. But, as I pointed out, an inquiry of this kind would not be suitable to try to resolve this dispute. I agree that the previous dispute was settled by discussion. When it comes to taking up entrenched positions, I should point out that at the moment both sides are taking up such positions. The management says that it cannot discuss the matter until there is a return to work and the union says that it cannot authorise a return to work until there is full payment for the 1½hours lost.