THE HULL TRANSPORT STRIKE by Ray Edwards
July 24th, 1964, was a day in the history of the 10/15 Road Passenger Transport branch of the TGWU, For 38 years this branch has experienced no strife, 1926 was the last time they had been out on strike. The strike, when it came on the 24th of July was as much a protest against trade union bureaucratic inaptitude as against managerial injustice.
The trouble started over a new system of schedule operation and duty rosta. It was quite evident from the outset that the management were making considerable economies under theproposed new operations, the busmen wanted a share -.in the benefits of these economies, They sought improvements in their working conditions. The new schedule and rosta applied only to one section of the branch: the men who operated East Hull services. From the first meeting,which was convened for the men to consider the new system of operations, protests were registered as to the many anomalies apparent in the new system. The management did concede one or two points by making amendments to the systeme
From the beginning, the East Hull men met opposition from their own T.U. officers, who used everything available to coerce the men into operat= ing the schedules for "a4 trial period." The men,however, had learned from past experience that once accepted (even for" trial period") the new system would become established and more difficult to alter. After almost 5 months of argument the management declared the matter as a dispute to the NJIC and attempted (wi thout success) to dictate terms of reference to the emergency comme ittee sent to investigate the dispute. The men through their lay representatives had repeatedly appealed to have the matter referred as a dispute but were met with hidebound trade union officialdom and ‘repeated "NO's",
The disputes committee found against the men on the major point of the dispute, but referred back for local settlement 6 other points. When the manage= ment wns approached by the branch officers at a subsequent meeting some form of settlement was reached. Two days after this the amended schedules were published with a commencing date of July 24th. There had been no reference back to the men although a resolution was standing compelling the branch officers to do so. The East Hull garage steward, who had diligently led his constituents throughout the the dispute was on holiday, and it appeared that the men were leaderless..
However, leadership did come from an ex-garage steward who was working whilst on holiday from Ruskin College. He petitioned the men and the branch officers were forced to convene a meeting to give a report on the settlement which proved to be wholly inadequate and was rejected. The branch officers were directed to re-open negotiations and failing a satisfactory solution the men would strike, The management flatly refused to comply with the wishes of the men = even after a 6 month's dispute over the alteration of a local agreement, they required the statutory 3 months, On 23rd July the men resolved to strike the following day. The stoppage of the East Hull services in dispute was 100% effective. However, at 2.30 p.m. all the busmen on other routes began to run their buses in, and came out on strike in sympathy. For one hour an unexpected show of solidarity became evident but one of the strike leaders had to get the men back, in order not to engender public illwill.
On the following Saturday a meeting was arranged with the management. The result was put to the men at a branch meeting held on Sunday. The report amoun~ ted to a complete capitulation by the management, conceding all demands. The threat of further strike action was withdrawn, and the offer of the management was accepted. The 10/15 branch will never be quite the same again, and this should be to the good of all concerned$