Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung Internet-Supplement ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$D:\Daten e\Widerstand in Berlin$




6 BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000 Richard Croucher by the Americans) and was elected President of the ICFTU in mid-1951. Gottfurcht was therefore a pivotal figure who was in a position to influence other important individuals.His advice to Tewson and Boeckler was an important factor in their mutual perceptions and in those of the occupation government. 8 Luce was Chief of the Manpower Division of the Control Commission (British Element), the Division with principal responsibility for trade unions. His background was not that of the typical British senior civil servant of the inter-war years. He had been educated at King’s College London rather than at Oxford or Cambridge. In 1939, he had entered the Ministry of Labour and between 1942 and 1945 had served as Assistant Secretary, working closely with Ernest Bevin, the Minister and ex-General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. During his period with Bevin, Luce was working in a context in which setting a positive environment for the development of collective bargaining was emphasised. Above all, the department worked to implement ‘voluntaryism’, within which the state encouraged the development of both employers’ associations and trade unions to resolve differences. Luce won Bevin’s trust and so when the latter became Foreign Secretary in the postwar Labour Government he was seconded to the Foreign Office to take up the German post. Gottfurcht and Luce came from quite different backgrounds, but both had extensive experience of industrial relations and their general views on the subject were probably quite similar. They met frequently in the crucial period for German unions between October 1945 when Gottfurcht first returned to Germany and 1950. In that year, Gottfurcht was appointed Education Officer for the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in Brussells while Luce became Commissioner for Schleswig- Holstein. Gottfurcht visited Germany in February and March 1947 and wrote a detailed report on the trade union situation. The document was written for the TUC and the Military Government. Gottfurcht painted a detailed picture of the unions’ state, the industrial relations situation, and workers’ living conditions. He also made critical remarks about British policy towards the development of industrial relations institutions in Germany. There was a general criticism related to the Military Government’s ‘toleration of the employers’ point of view’. Unions, on the other hand, had to penetrate ‘barbed wire entanglements’ to press their case. More specifically, Gottfurcht criticised the authorities for their attitude to employers’ associations. The government should make it unlawful for employers to form associations which did not include collective bargaining among their functions, and additionally associations which included those but not certain other functions. The Military Government was also criticised for intervening on the operation of the Works Council law. The unions wished to limit the rights of non-unionists to stand for Works Councils in that they would have to receive a list of nominees amounting to 10% of those eligible to vote in the election.This was an attempt to play on fears current at the time among Allied officials that Communists might be able
Richard Croucher BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000 7 to take advantage of the creation of Works Councils to increase their influence at workplaces. The British Military Government intervened to prevent the unions from insisting that their policy be followed in elections in the North Rhine province, bringing complaints both from them and Gottfurcht. He also criticised the authorities’ insistence that the unions state publicly that their Model Works’ Agreement was not backed by the Military Government. Finally, returning to the more general level, Gottfurcht complained that the Government had been ‘extremely’ reluctant’ to disown the actions of a particular officer who had issued a circular to his subordinates propagating an interpretation of the Works Council Law (Law No.22) which was inaccurate and unfavourable to unions. Both the circular and the Military Government’s apparent reluctance to withdraw it were cited as evidence of anti-trade union bias. 9 The circular had been written by D.C. Lee, Property Control Officer in Kreis Group HQ, Bielefeld, on 28 February, 1947, to his local Property Control Officers. These officers had considerable power in many enterprises and often carried ultimate responsibility for their industrial relations. They were employees of the Finance Division of the Military Government, which was primarily concerned with protecting British interests in Germany. The Finance Division, unlike most others, was not subject to one of the two SubCommisions which stood at the head of the government and therefore enjoyed a relatively autonomous status.Lee attempted to clarify the role of Betriebsraete under Law 22. He listed thirteen points on which there appeared to him to be confusion. Most of his interpretations tended to limit Betriebsraete’s influence in senses which were probably not envisaged by the law. One was that the Betriebsraete did not have the right to inspect the firm’s books (point 1), that management did not have to consult Betriebsraete when changing working methods (point 6), and that Betriebsraete ‘will not receive any special protection from dismissal’ (point 10). All managements and Property Controllers were to be informed that any proposed agreement had to be copied to Bielefeld HQ and that agreements reached which were not in accordance with the letter’s terms would be cancelled. The memorandum was sent out under cover of a letter claiming that it was ‘the valid and authorised interpretation by Military Government of Works Council Law no.22.’ 10 This was repudiated by Luce’s subordinate Frank Kenny, Zonal Liaison Officer in the Industrial Relations Branch of Manpower Division, in a letter to Albert Carthy of the TUC’s International Department, dated 20 May, 1947. Kenny added that the employers had ‘seized avidly on the document, duplicated it and circulated it throughout the British Zone’. There was evidence that it was being used in a similar way by employers in the American and French zones. 11 The episode was described in the Manpower Division’ s Industrial Relations Branch internal Monthly Bulletin as ‘ill-starred and notorious’. Since the circular had claimed to reflect policy, the Soviet delegation to the Control Commission Germany’s Manpower Directorate asked publicly for clarification of the British attitude to Works Councils. Altogether, it had
Page 1 and 2: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeit
Page 3 and 4: BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000 3 The Tra
Page 5: Richard Croucher BzG-Supplement No.
Page 9 and 10: Richard Croucher BzG-Supplement No.
Page 17 and 18: Rezensionen - von der Verteidigung
Page 19 and 20: Rezensionen Hitlers Machtantritt be
Page 21 and 22: Rezensionen Heinz Niemann, einem au

Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung Internet-Supplement ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?