LUCAS AEROSPACE COMBINE SHOP STEWARDS' COMMITTEE
 |
| Some Active Combine Members at Wortley Hall, South Yorkshire in the 1970s Chairman Mike Cooney in left foreground along with Mike Cooley, Ron Mills, Ernie Scarbrow, Danny Conroy, Brian Salisbury, John Routley, Bob Dodd, Phil Asquith, Jack Gunter, Pat McSharry, and other comrades. |
 |
Combine meeting with Tony Benn, November 1974 |
 |
Combine meeting with Tony Benn, November 1974 |
 |
Combine meeting with Tony Benn, November 1974 |
The Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards' Committee
In the late 1960s the Lucas Aerospace workers were concerned about their future employment prospects. The management were pursuing a policy of rationalisation within the U.K. and the workforce was declining, through redundancy or natural wastage. Meanwhile investments were being concentrated into their overseas companies. Government financially backed up Lucas management, in pursuance of a policy of a reorganisation and rationalisation of the aerospace components industry. It was obvious to the workforce and their trade union representatives that their future employment prospects could not be guaranteed if left to management. Also pressure needed to be applied at Government level to change their policy in favour of linking the grant aiding of private companies to employment growth.
To have an understanding of the difficulties the workforce were faced with, its necessary to understand how the company was structured. Lucas Aerospace, as part of the Lucas Industries Group, was a major manufacturer of components for the aerospace industry. In the late 1960's it employed 18000 highly skilled manual and staff workers on 11 geographical sites throughout the U.K.
Lucas Aerospace was formed as a result of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, a Government body, providing a grant of £3m to Lucas to acquire a number of Aerospace component companies.
The newly amalgamated workforce had plant based trade union representation involving 12 individual manual and staff unions. Although each trade union gave voice to each sector and trade of the workforce there was no overall umbrella organisation within the grassroots trade union structures to raise issues of common interest affecting all workers such as pensions, employment levels or investment policy. This was in contrast to management who were organised centrally to dictate their corporate policies at will. This weakness within the trade union structures was exploited by management, enabling them to play one site off against another.
All sites had shop stewards committees carrying out negotiations for their own members with local management, on day to day issues. Full time trade union officials only became involved if and when agreement could not be reached at domestic level. Given the absence of a company wide trade union body it was considered necessary to build on the plant shop stewards structure by creating an overall Lucas Aerospace trade union body to put the shop stewards in a position where they could stand toe to toe with management when dealing with issues of a corporate nature.
It was in these circumstances that a decision was made to form a Combine Shop Stewards Committee representing all Lucas Aerospace workers across the 11 U.K. sites.
BUILDING THE COMBINE ORGANISATION
At the first meeting in 1968 it was determined that the Combine would involve both manual and staff workers trade union representation and the process started to encourage individual unions and sites to get involved. It took time for the Combine to develop. 15 shop stewards attended the first meeting representing Hemel Hempstead, Willesden, Bradford and Coventry. It took until 1973, when 60 Shop Stewards attended Wortley Hall as delegates from all 11 affiliated sites before the Combine was truly representative of the Lucas Aerospace workforce.
This length of time was understandable given that Lucas Aerospace was an amalgamation of different companies, with workers having different conditions of employment. Also, establishing a Combine of staff and manual workers, whilst being unique, did create a problem due to staff workers being on superior conditions of service to the manual workers. Another issue of possible conflict was foreman trade union representative sitting alongside representatives of the shop floor who on a day to day basis they supervised.
In the early days the Combine concentrated on building up trust between the delegates and remove doubts about the Combines role. Therefore, the delegates determined it would be a recommending body providing an overall coordinated approach to management decisions, with the decision making remaining with site shop stewards committees.
The first recommendation made concerned wage rates and the product range. Because wage rates of manual workers varied from site to site, information was gathered to enable site committees to negotiate on an informed basis. Also an audit was carried out of the products manufactured on each site so that the Combine delegates had an overall view of the components produced by the company as a whole. It was considered that any duplication of products would identify sites which were vulnerable to management rationalisation attempts.
In early 1971 management where drawing up plans to streamline the workforce in its Engine Management Division. Prior to the plans being implemented, Rolls Royce, in January of that year, suffered a financial collapse as a result of a drop in the market for the RB211 engine for which Lucas was to supply the fuel systems. This provided the opportunity for the company to bring forward and increase the number of redundancies.
Over 2000 workers in Birmingham, Liverpool and Wolverhampton lost their jobs. It was traumatic for the workforce but handy for management who carried out there rationalisation plans without serious trade union resistance, blaming the loss of the RB211 for the redundancies. Moreover Lucas suffered no financial loss, with Rolls Royce repaying the losses incurred by Lucas and the RB211 was reinstated!
The Birmingham and Liverpool stewards shocked by the redundancies, realised that while previously experiencing growth in the Engine Management Division, they were in future to experience the same threats to their members livelihoods as other divisions of the company. In other words, nobody was safe from the threat of losing their jobs. As a consequence Birmingham and Liverpool stewards affiliated to the Combine in October 1971.
With the majority of sites now affiliated, the Combine delegates approved changes to strengthen its effectiveness. Ron Mills, the Birmingham based TASS senior representative, was elected to the Executive as Liaison Officer to assist the Secretary Ernie Scarbrow improve site co-ordination and communication, and Mike Cooley was elected to edit the Combine News, a newspaper for distribution to all Lucas Aerospace workers, again with the aim of improving communication.
A draft Constitution was drawn up and circulated to the sites for their consideration. It was agreed within the Constitution that any decisions reached at Combine, with each site delegate entitled to one vote, would be taken back as recommendations to site committees where the final decision would be made. To ensure the Combine was self-sufficient and accountable to the workforce, Combine activities were funded by the Lucas Aerospace workers through a 10p annual contribution.
THE COMBINE IN ACTION
Between 1972 and 1975 the Combine was involved in a number of campaigns through which it developed the organisational strength and strategic thinking to embark on developing an alternative corporate strategy for the company.
THE BURNLEY STRIKE which lasted for thirteen weeks between July and September 1972, provided the Combine with the opportunity to challenge management corporate power. There had not been a strike of this magnitude in Burnley since 1926 and it took management by surprise. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions had submitted a national claim for engineering workers, then left it to shop stewards committees to fight it out with local management to get the best deal.
Although the national claim was for £2.50, the Burnley stewards also pursued a parity claim, given that the manual workers were being paid £4 a week less than other Aerospace sites. After initially refusing to negotiate, management finally offered a 50p increase. As a consequence the workers imposed a work to rule. The management responded by switching off the power which in effect locked the workers out. This resulted in the workforce voting to occupy the factory which then escalated into a strike.
The Combine held an emergency meeting to consider the best way to support Burnley. After much discussion it was decided that financial support would be the best way of helping the Burnley strikers. The strike was made official with the strike pay being between £2 and £4 per week. Mass meetings took place on all sites and a levy imposed on the workforces. As a consequence over £10,000 was raised from the sites and the Burnley strikers were subsidised on the basis of their needs.
The workforce held out until the Management conceded the principle of parity, which meant an average increase of £4 a week increase.
This was not only a victory for Burnley but also for the Combine. During the strike Combine members from other sites spoke at the mass meetings providing a sense of solidarity. Whereas before the strike the Burnley site relationship with the Combine was tenuous, during the course of the strike the Combine came to mean more to the workforce and resulted in Burnley affiliating to the Combine.
The first input from Burnley to the Combine was to return £2000 from the hardship fund, which was put into a special fund to provide support for future disputes.
From then on Burnley delegates played a very active role in the Combine with Mick Cooney becoming Chairman and Danny Conroy Treasurer. While Phil Asquith as a T.A.S.S. senior representative and a degree qualified engineer provided technical experience which proved to be invaluable at a later stage during and after the development of the Combines Alternative Plan.
REDUNDANCY THREAT In 1973 the Management again threatened to reduce the workforce. Unlike 1971 the Combine was sufficiently well organised to deal with the threat. Initially management tried to involve the Combine in helping them to manage the redundancies. This suggestion from management was emphatically turned down by the Combine. While the Combine co-ordinated the action centrally, recommending bans on overtime and sub-contracting, it was at local level where the battle took place. In Birmingham, for example, the resistance to the redundancies was co-ordinated through the Liaison Committee which represented the seven unions on the five Birmingham factories. Similar to other sites, Birmingham shop stewards established a multi-union committee to deal with issues of a common nature and were successful in offsetting management attacks on the workforce. The C.S.E.U. recognised Liaison Committee was formed in 1971 following the redundancies. It was chaired by Brian Salisbury (T.A.S.S.) and the representation included John Routley (E.E.T.&P.U.) who later held the post of Technical Liaison Officer at U.D.A.P. (see follow on from Lucas Plan)
The Liaison Committee was ideal for organising guerrilla tactics across the five factories. The most strategically important groups were the dispatch and transport workers who were taken out on strike and supported financially through a levy of the whole Birmingham workforce. This tactic worked well, and was applied at Wolverhampton and most of the other sites. The Combines role in the campaign was crucial, co-ordinating site by site activity on a day to day basis. In an effort to get the sanctions lifted site management in Birmingham attempted to negotiate at local level. This was turned down by the Liaison Committee, who insisted that negotiations to lift the sanctions would have to be carried out with the Combine Committee. This insistence on national negotiations was sustained at every site. The industrial sanctions were working, and the levies for those on strike were still flowing in.
At the end of February 1974, management conceded and met the Combine Executive. They agreed to withdraw all compulsory redundancy notices, on the grounds that they had sufficient volunteers. The Combine agreed and recommended to site committees that they end the strikes but to keep the bans on overtime and sub-contracting. After a calculation of the figures around the sites, the number of volunteers amounted to 300 which were 500 short of the management target. While the Combine delegates were pleased with the outcome, the workforce had been reduced by 300 at a time when the order books were full.
The Combine recognised that the introduction of new technology through the installation of computer controlled machinery was responsible for the redundancies. Making the Combine come to the conclusion that the traditional trade union ways of opposing redundancy were becoming outdated. It was this way of thinking which led the Combine 2 years later to draw up their Alternative Plan.
SELF RELIANCE AND EXPERTISE
PENSIONS - In 1968 legislation was being prepared by Government to introduce an earning related element to the State Pension Scheme. For those in company occupation schemes the opportunity to opt out was to be provided. The Combine saw this as an opportunity to improve the Lucas scheme through collective bargaining. Because no trade unions had pension advisory services the Combine had to rely on its own expertise. They set up a Pensions Advisory Committee with Roy Middleton (T.A.S.S.) a Works Study Engineer as an adviser to the committee. Roy was a self- taught pensions expert motivated by his experience of visiting people suffering pension poverty. Initially he held teach-ins to Combine delegates and visited sites to explain the detail of the Lucas pension scheme, and where he considered changes should be made. The works/staff pensions fund was worth £108m and was under total company control. The Combines aim was to have one scheme for all staff and manual workers, rather than the separate funds which already existed. It wanted to change the existing flat rate scheme, to a final salary multiplied by the years served scheme. It also aimed to increase company contribution to the equivalent of twice that paid by the members.
It was at this time that Lucas Industries management decided to reorganise the pensions scheme for the total workforce. 15 shop stewards where involved in the manual scheme negotiations and 3 on the staff scheme.
Because it was Lucas Industries wide the Combine could not get involved directly, however they offered advice on an informal basis. In addition a poster campaign was launched to advise all Lucas workers of the importance of the pension negotiations.
In 1975 the manual workers won their demands on a pension formula, an increase in the companies contribution, and equal male and female pensions. The new scheme cost Lucas £3m instead of the £1m previously paid. Both staff and works negotiated the right to have 3 trade union trustee representatives on the boards directly elected from shop stewards committees, therefore accountable to the trade union organised workforce.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVICE - In 1974 the Combine set up a Science and Technology Advisory Committee to deal with any problems arising from the introduction of new technology or changes in the production process. Like the pensions advisory service it drew on the expertise of the Lucas Aerospace workforce. It also made use of members of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science and the Socialist Medical Association both of which organisations the Combine was affiliated.
If a shop steward had a problem concerning the use of new processes and materials for example, he could contact Mike Cooley at Willesden, the convenor of the advisory committee, who would deal with it himself or pass it on to another committee member. If necessary they would seek the advice of someone in the affiliated bodies. Information and suggestions would then be passed back to the site committees for use in negotiations.
THE ORIGINS OF THE ALTERNATIVE PLAN
In October 1974 at Wortley Hall, the Combine delegates carried out an analysis of their achievements and discussed their future aims. They considered the Combine had achieved the confidence of the sites to formulate central policies without undermining the authority of site committees. Although they had been successful in initiating and co-ordinating action against management attacks, the biggest problem, that of job loss was still taking place. Although militant defensive campaigns had reduced the management efforts to carry out wholescale redundancies, the overall number of workers was still falling. For example, management overseas investment policies were being carried out without any effective trade union action to prevent it. Although the Combine had started to establish contacts with French and Spanish trade unionists, there was no time to establish an international trade union structure to deal with any further company rationalisation plans. In these circumstances the Combine needed to apply an additional strategy if they were going to stop the job loss continuing.
The Combine where aware of the proposal to nationalise the aircraft industry, drawn up by a working party of the Labour Party, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (C.S.E.U) and the T.U.C. The existence of the proposals led the Combine to consider that nationalisation could be a way of maintaining the workforce levels. No Combine delegate believed that nationalisation in itself would solve all the problems of the workforce, but they did believe it would be easier to reach solutions in a publically owned company by being able to appeal to the wider community for alternative work in place of redundancy. The Combine News was used to stimulate a debate at site level about the merits of Lucas Aerospace being nationalised and whether the Combine should pursue it with the recently elected Labour Government. The response from sites was mixed, with some site committees considering the Combine was mixing politics with trade unionism. However it was pointed out that politics could not be separated out from trade union action, examples being given when favourable legislation had made it easier for trade unions to make breakthroughs. Also it made sense to include, within nationalisation, the aerospace components industry with the airframe and engine sectors, given that total aircraft construction contained a 50% component contribution. In addition, direct accountability between taxpayer and a nationalised components industry would exist. This was seen as important by Combine delegates given the financial support Lucas obtained from the public purse without any accountability whatsoever. To sum up the opinion of the Combine Executive its worth quoting the Combine News of September 1974.
“Your Combine Committee is deeply aware of the problems nationalisation would cause. We do believe that with the full involvement of all our members we could insist upon adequate safeguards against many of these. The advantages would be considerable, we would finally be working for our ultimate employers, and we would insist that they face directly the consequences of any cutbacks. (Now the employers chant, Its not our fault- it’s a Government cutback). We could insist that the skill and talents of our members could be used on a whole range of ancillary products which the aircraft industry would be quite capable of handling. We could reduce the nagging insecurity which has overshadowed the industry for years, and start to give to the workforce in it a real sense of direction and purpose. We could begin to expand the product ranges, to engage on socially useful products, such as monorails and hovercraft. We would be in a better position to create an industry where the skill and talent of our members is used to the full, and in a much truer sense, is used in the interest of the nation as a whole. It would be at least a step in the right direction.”
Thus the idea of socially useful work as an alternative to redundancy was first referred to.
As a result the Combine delegates decided to seek a meeting with Tony Benn, Secretary of State for Industry. A meeting was agreed and arranged for November 1974. Every site sent at least two representatives, one staff and one shop floor. The two-and-half hour meeting between the Combine delegation of thirty four stewards and Tony Benn was unprecedented - and never to be repeated with the Combine.
The Department of Industry Civil Servants were opposed to Benn meeting the shop stewards as were some of the national trade union official leadership in engineering. Soon after this and other such meetings, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions passed a resolution stating that shop stewards must not make direct contact with Government ministers but must always go via the district C.S.E.U., through to the national C.S.E.U.
This decision to prevent direct contact between shop stewards and Government ministers later proved to be a major difficulty for the Combine. This decision of the C.S.E.U. was consistent with their overall attitude to Combine Committees, refusing to recognise them as official bodies within the trade union movement. Not withstanding that the C.S.E.U., as an organisation, had never been successful in fighting redundancy at overall company level.
Lucas management took full advantage of the official trade unions decision not to recognise the Combine, which caused problems for the Combine at a later stage.
Despite the objections by the Civil Service and C.S.E.U. Tony Benn went ahead with the meeting. Benn, in replying to the Combines case to be included in nationalisation of the aircraft industry, stated that the nationalisation proposals were not as yet finalised and also he did not have the power to extend the proposals to include Lucas Aerospace.
Instead he suggested that the Combine Committee “be involved in drawing up a Corporate Strategy for Lucas Aerospace”. He also wondered if the Combine wanted him to organise a tripartite meeting involving management. The delegation considered that management involvement at this stage was premature, prior to the trade union plan being drawn up, however they would arrive at a decision following discussions at site level.
At the next Combine meeting in January 1975, a report was given on the meeting with Tony Benn. Delegates then had to determine what recommendations should be taken back to the sites. Now that nationalisation was no longer possible the delegates discussed the possibility of drawing up an alternative corporate strategy of the company. They realised the dangers of trade unions extending their negotiations into drawing up a strategy for a private company within the market economy. If they did, a workers corporate plan would look very similar to that drawn up by management. Given that, Mike Cooley suggested a way forward
" Now I think the only way we could be involved in a corporate plan would be if we drew it up in a way which challenged the private profit motive of the company and talked in terms of social profit. Suppose we started to say we wouldn’t allow the kidney machines to go. They are trying to sell off Bradleys. (the site where the kidney machines were manufactured) Or take the technology that is used to make the actuators on aeroplane flaps: those small mechanisms could be used to make artificial limbs for the disabled. If we proposed socially useful products, what would be said then? It is at this stage of the game that you see who controls industry…….I think it is an insult to our skill and intelligence that we can produce a Concorde, and not enough paraffin heaters for all the old-age pensioners who are dying in the cold. We have to look at these things now if we are going to do the plan. In my view, the only way we could do it would be in a way that was completely independent of the company”
And so were sown the seeds of the Combines Corporate Plan which would answer social needs rather than the needs of the market.
For the details of the Combine's Corporate Plan see the Lucas Plan and New Lucas Plan Working Group and Links tabs.
For a more detailed account of the history of the Combine and the Alternative Plan the book written by Hilary Wainwright and Dave Elliott - The Lucas Plan a New Trade Unionism in the Making? is recommended.
by Brian Salisbury, Combine Chairman 1979 to 1982.
12 May 2020
Centre for Alternative Industrial and Technological Systems (CAITS)
CAITS was established in 1978 as a result of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust grant aiding the Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards Committee. The Centre was located in the Engineering Faculty of the North East London Polytechnic (NELP) enabling Polytechnic staff to have close links with CAITS and its work. CAITS was jointly directed by the Combine and the Polytechnic with Mike Cooley, the Combine representative, and Richard Fletcher of NELP acted as joint Directors on a voluntary basis. At the outset Mike George was appointed as Co-ordinator for the Centre and Steve Alexander, a researcher from Loughborough University, was recruited with responsibility for cooperative development. As the work at CAITS developed, additional staff where taken on.
The funding was granted to the Combine because of their positive response to the threat of
redundancy. The Shop Stewards with the support of the Lucas Aerospace workforce had drawn up an alternative Corporate Plan which proposed that “rather than workers being made redundant (because of no aerospace work) they used their skills to produce goods that were socially useful'” (See The Plan tab for more details).
CAITS acted as a clearing house for the Combine's Corporate Plan and promoted the development and application of socially useful products. It was supported by an Advisory Committee of trade unionists and academics. CAITS accumulated expertise in the field of socially useful production and made it available to other workers at Rolls Royce, BAC, Chrysler, Clarke Chapman and Vickers who were also pursuing their own Plans. It promoted design, development, prototype manufacture, production and marketing of “alternative” products. It also assisted in more socially desirable, non-hierarchical organisational forms of industry.CAITS also assisted in setting up small-scale co-ops and community industries in the East London area. Working groups were set up in a number of areas including medical equipment, micro-electronics, communication and the economics of unemployment.
As CAITS developed, technical development work was carried out on several products identified in the Combine's Corporate Plan. As it was located in the Engineering Faculty of the Polytechnic, engineering workshops were available. This enabled development work to take place on the Hybrid Power Pack, the Road-Rail Vehicle, Guided Transport Systems for the Third World and an Intermediate Scale Paper Reprocessing Plant.
As an example of the progress made in the joint collaboration of the Combine and the Polytechnic through CAITS is the development of the Road-Rail Vehicle. The initial design and development of the prototype was undertaken by the Polytechnic engineering staff and students. The Combine purchased a second hand single decker bus by means of money raised from the Lucas Aerospace workforce and Burnley workers manufactured the flanged metal wheels (undertaken unofficially out of work hours using company machinery) for installation on the bus. It was then driven down to the West Somerset Railway, a railway run by volunteers, and tested satisfactorily in front of the world's press to operate on both
road and rail. Following that it was driven from site to site to allow the Lucas Aerospace workforce the opportunity of seeing the results of the joint enterprise.
CAITS generated an analysis of the economic and social costs of unemployment compared to the economic and social benefits of Workers Plans. This information was circulated to the Combine and other workers involved in fighting redundancy. A number of conferences were organised by CAITS to promote the Combine's Corporate Plan with the aim of encouraging other workers and community groups to follow in the Combine's footsteps.
A working group was established comprising a wide variety of medical practitioners and technician to develop the medical proposals in the Corporate Plan including research and development on kidney dialysis machines, simple alarm systems for several areas of medical equipment appropriately designed for use in the developing countries
.
CAITS was actively involved in lobbying on behalf of the Combine and the Corporate Plan,
generating a large number of Parliamentary Questions and resolutions to the labour and trade union movement.
Many visited CAITS – especially from overseas – and presentations were regularly given. A small number of research students made up the Centre's educational function. CAITS also acted as an information centre for those requiring speakers from either the Centre or the Combine.
Assistance was given to groups who were trying to set up producer co-operatives in the Docklands area in which CAITS was situated. That included education, research and where necessary, political lobbying at the local level.
Finally, CAITS offered research assistance to groups of workers attempting to develop workers plans and reports on their companies or industries. In particular CAITS supported the 14 man Lucas Aerospace CSEU working party in 1979 to produce
the report “Turning Industrial Decline into Expansion” Again this was a good example of a joint exercise between North East Polytechnic and the Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards Committee in the fight against redundancy.
A Voice of the Unions special supplement on the Corporate Plan and CAITS printed in the late 70s is the basis for the above article on CAITS .To the best of my knowledge it’s a true reflection of the work which was carried out. If there are any errors I apologise and would welcome any other contributions of CAITS work that are available. A considerable number of papers produced by CAITS can be accessed through the Archives link.
Because of cuts in core funding a major restructuring of CAITS was undertaken in 1988 which involved a reduction in staff. CAITS was relocated from North East Polytechnic to rented premises nearby and more emphasis was placed on income generating research contracts
I may be mistaken but Ive been led to believe that CAITS as an organisation no longer exists. This is unfortunate given that climate change is going to require a move towards a Green Economy. In these circumstances a partnership will be required between Academics and Trade Unionists to formulate policies that manage the shift from fossil fuel to renewables ensuring that environmental improvements don’t result in job losses.
Brian Salisbury May 2020
*********************************************************************************
John Routley Former Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards'
Committee Member - a profile
 |
| Then..... |
I was born in Billesley Birmingham In August 1952 in my Grans Council house to a
proud working class family. By Trade, my Dad, Jack, was a Mother of Pearl Turner in
Birmingham’s famous Jewellery Quarter my Mom, Irene, typical busy housewife.
Later on, I had two younger Brothers and a Sister. We had a large family; it seemed
the norm back then, so I had a number of Uncles and Aunts as well as a great
number of Cousins. Nearly all of them descended on our house during the weekends
to come and visit the Head of the house my wonderful Grandmother Violet.
Nearly all of my Uncles worked in the Car Industry, or within the supply chain. As did
some of my Aunts, one thing they all had in common was that they were all in a
Trade Union, most were Shop Stewards, including my Aunt. They all voted labour.
The only exception was my Gran who was born in 1878 a true Victorian, who was
told, when she had the vote that she was expected to Vote Tory because it was
treason to not support the Political party associated to the Royal family. She always
believed this throughout her life.
Therefore, during my childhood, I used to sit and listen to my Family discussing their
Trade Union activities every weekend as my Uncles and Aunts shared their
experiences at work. When my dad’s employer died and the widow sold the
business, my Uncles managed to get my Dad a job in the Car industry. He worked at
BMC (British Motor Corporation) on a large Power Press in Drew’s Lane
Birmingham.
I also grew up with a family that had a great sense of humour. Often they would all
go down the Local pub on a Saturday night, bring back a crate of Ale and roll up a
threadbare carpet and Party. I used to creep down the Stairs and watch them
through the railings. I remember that a family friend was a one armed Piano Player.
They used to promise him free beer to come and Play. Whenever he wanted to have
a drink, the Music would stop as he picked up a bottle and they used to jeer at him to
carry on as they were dancing. Poor man could never get drunk in our house.
My Gran died in 1966, and gradually the family, like many seemed to drift apart.
Although some of the family traditions continued such as our Boxing Day family get
together
It was 1968 I was about to leave school. The Careers teacher asked me what I
wanted to do when I left. I told him I wanted to be in a Trade Union that was my main
ambition. I left School and became an Apprentice Electrician at Super Oil Seals and
gaskets. I started work at 8.00am by 9.30am I had joined the TWGU.
I attended a Mass meeting in the August concerning the Pay Claim. I stood up,
addressed the meeting, and challenged the TWGU Area Official. Within 6 months, I
was a Shop Steward for the Maintenance department. I joined the labour party,
became an organiser for the Young Socialists and my Moms House now became a
labour party organising office for Billesley Ward.
In 1973 The company was Sold to an American Corporation and we were made
redundant. I negotiated my first Redundancy settlement for our members.
I then worked for a Company called Weldall Engineering; I had to join the AUEW.
However, within a few months became works Convenor. Having discovered we were
part of the Triplex group, I made contact with Convenors from other small sites in the
West Midlands. Without knowing it at the time, we formed a mini combine committee.
Collectively we fought for and gained parity on pay and pensions with Triplex.
I also won a couple of cases against the company through ACAS at the Employers
Federation. In 1976 the company was closed down, I negotiated an excellent
Redundancy package and once again found myself out of work.
Through my contacts in the Trade Union and labour movement I found myself a job
at Lucas Aerospace in Birmingham .It was February 1977 I had to join the EETPU
(Electricians and Plumbers Union) in order to join their closed shop. At the time, our
Shop Steward was quite right wing, as was the EETPU Union. However, when he
resigned to become our supervisor later that I became the Shop Steward. I had read
the Combine magazines and knew about the Plan. As the only EETPU Steward, I
joined the site committee and met Brian Salisbury and Ron Todd. I remember going
to a Combine meeting and meeting Ernie Scarborough and Mike Cooley for the first
time and hearing these people speaking about the Plan and a Road Rail bus.
I went back to my members and from that, they all agreed that we should join the
Combine, which we did. Until then the EETPU had not involved themselves with the
Plan. I also bought along Spring Road who I also represented.
From that moment on I became committed to The Plan and the Combine. I met
people like Phil Asquith, Danny Conroy, Trevor Pilling and so many other Stewards
from different Lucas Aerospace sites.
I was also, at that time on the national negotiating committee for the Lucas Industries
Electricians Group. This was to cause me great difficulties’ with the EETPU later on.
It would be around 1980 that along with Brian Salisbury and Bob Dodd that we
obtained funds from Cadbury Geraldine Trust and West Midlands County Council to
help us set up a Department in a University to develop some of the socially useful
products identified in the Plan. Eventually we created UDAP (Unit for the
Development of Alternative products) in partnership with the faculty of Engineering in
Coventry Lanchester Polytechnic.
I left Lucas Aerospace in 1983; the EETPU along with the Senior Steward of Lucas
Industries Electricians group played a major role in forcing me out. However, I was
fortunate enough to get a job as Technical Liaison officer at UDAP. This allowed me
to continue the Combines work on the Development of the product ideas until I left in
1988. By this time, I had the Education bug. I had helped Courtaulds, a large
engineering company; create an Apprenticeship programme in Coventry.
When I left UDAP, I worked in a number of organisations both Private and Public
developing people rather than products. I was supporting the empowerment of
people through education.
I joined WMFS (West Midlands Fire Service) in January 2001 to help the
development of new entrants and to introduce qualifications. I joined UNISON within
a month. Over my time within WMFS and Unison, I became Branch Lifelong
Learning Coordinator, introducing over 140 staff to Open University Courses,
including full Degree. I then became Branch Education Officer and introduced formal
Qualifications to all staff, not just members. I then became Branch Chair in 2014 and
finally Branch Convenor in 2016 until my retirement in 2019. I am currently the
Branch Retired members Secretary; I sit on Regional Committee for Retired
members, Regional Committee, and TUC Regional committee for Retired members.
I am also the Unison Labour Link officer for the WMFS Branch.
It was at Regional office in 2016 that I came across the flyer for the Lucas Plan
Conference to Celebrate 40 years of the Plans launch.
I was amazed to discover that my old Comrades would be attending. It was so
emotional to meet up with Phil Asquith, Brian Salisbury, Ron Mills, Bob Dodd and
Mick Cooney after all those years.
Then I met Steve Sprung and learned about his amazing film, From the Bottom up.
Since then Combine members, who are able, have been meeting up working on how
we can keep the Legacy of the Combine Committee alive. Currently developing a
Web Site and bringing to life memories, we can share.
Some of us have attended events and we are embarking on new adventures and
embracing new technology such as Zoom meetings and speaking on other
platforms. The Plan with survive us all.
My Ancestors would be proud of that young lad who used to sit and listen to their
stories on a Sunday afternoon. Knowing now that they were educating me into what
Socialism, Unity and Organising is all about.
 |
| ......and now! |
John Routley
Former Lucas Aerospace Shop Steward
Lucas Aerospace - a Trade Union
journey by Brian Salisbury
 |
| Brian at a Friends of the Earth event in 1978 |
My involvement in the trade union
movement has had a profound
effect on how I view the world and the
role I play in it. With my
political education developing the
more I became involved.
Yet before my employment at Lucas
Aerospace at the age of 25 in
January 1960, I had very little
knowledge of the history of trade
unionism or its role in the workplace.
This was mainly due to having
spent the previous 4 years in the
Royal Air Force.
In some ways serving in the RAF and
being employed in industry had
similarities in as much that the same
command structure existed. In
both, any form of democracy was non
existent. Whatever decision
was made on high, it was handed down
and had to be acted on by
those on the lower rungs of the
ladder.
However I discovered that there was a
significant difference - if the
factory you work in was trade union
organised. Then as an individual
and you had an unresolved grievance,
you could approach your trade
union representative for support.
Given that I needed to have a
“safety net” in place I became a trade
union member of the
Amalgamated Union of Engineers.
It was later that I took an active
part in trade union activities. And to
be honest I had a vested interest in the
outcome being successful. At
that stage of my Lucas career I was
employed, in 1965, as a Defect
Investigator on Works Conditions of
Service. Our argument was that
the work involved in undertaking the
role of a Defect Investigator
justified the Conditions of Service of
a staff member. And it was an
argument worth winning because the
benefits of switching from
Works to Staff involved a superior
pensions scheme, your salary paid
when off sick and an incremental
salary scale. As a married man with
a growing family the benefits of
“going on the staff” were obvious
especially as it would provide a
safety net if I was incapacitated in
any way. To improve our chances all in
the department joined the
Technical and Administrative
Supervisory Section (TASS) which was
the staff section of the Engineering
Union. It took time but in the end
we were successful, with all Defect
Investigators achieving Staff
status. This was my first experience
of how collective action with
Trade Union support can achieve
success in pursuing a justified well
argued claim.
In 1968 I enrolled, along with others,
on an in-house 18 month
trainee draughtsman course. On
completion I was employed in the
Drawing Office as a Detail Draughtsman.
I had no time to celebrate, a
short time after my appointment, Lucas
Aerospace management
announced a programme of redundancies.
It was 1971 and taking advantage of
the problems experienced by
Rolls Royce our main customer,
management stated they wanted to
reduce the workforce by 2000 - many of
whom were from the
Birmingham sites. I was lucky.
Management selected those who had
more recently joined the company
rather than those of us who had
recently been employed in the Drawing
Office. Saying that, it gave us
no pleasure to see time served
Draughtsmen being taken into the
Managers office and told they were no
longer required.
The redundancies sent shockwaves
through the Birmingham sites -
with the workers realising that in the
long term their jobs were no
longer secure. Action needed to be
taken! The Senior Shop Stewards
of all unions had recently explored
the possibility of affiliating to the
Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards
Committee. The Combine
had been set up to represent all the
Lucas Aerospace workforce on
all of the sites (see Combine link).
After discussion by all unions on
the Birmingham sites it was agreed, in
1971, to affiliate to the
Combine.
Meanwhile, in addition to establishing
myself as a Draughtsman I
took a more active role in the union
by joining the Office Committee
This was an important first step for
me. In 1972 I was elected to
represent members of the Drawing
Office at the Shaftmoor Lane site.
Apart from just two all the staff were
union members. Also
management employed contract
draughtsmen, a common practice
in drawing offices, supposedly as and
when the volume of work
justified it. It didn’t take us long
to ”persuade” the two to join and
reached agreement with management that
contract draughtsman
wouldn’t be used in future, with peaks
of work dealt with by
recruiting draughtsmen or controlled
overtime.
The drawing office was male dominated.
Apart from the
administrative staff, the only women
were the Tracers. They were
relatively low paid and there was no
pathway for them to progress to
be draughtswomen. To remedy that, I
drew up and negotiated a
training scheme with management which
provided the opportunity
for Tracers to progress to
Draughtswomen.
Ron Mills was the senior TASS
representative for all the five
Birmingham sites. To provide
administrative support for Ron the post
of Secretary was established for the
Shaftmoor Lane site. I stood for
the post and was elected.
I first met up with Ron when we both
worked in the Defect
Investigation Department. Although
outwardly a quiet unassuming
man, when he opened up there was no
doubt about his politics. He
was a good working class socialist who
practised his politics through
his trade union activities. In
addition to his site duties he was Branch
Chairman. Has an indication of his
breadth of knowledge Ron had a
degree in English and Shakespearian
studies and was fluent in the
French language. We became good
friends and he was a big
influence in my political development.
It was Ron, as the Combines
Liaison Officer who introduced me to
Combine activities.
The overall workforce on the five
Birmingham sites were represented
by seven manual and staff union who
all had their own individual
structures and negotiating rights.
However on matters of common
interest such as the introduction of
new technology, threats of
redundancy, product range and
investment policy , there was no
union structure in place. To remedy
this a Liaison Committee was
established. I was nominated to be the
TASS representative on the
Committee and at its inaugural meeting
in 1972 I was elected as its
Chairman.
The Birmingham Lucas Aerospace Liaison
Committee met as when it
was necessary. It was a recommending
body with the final decisions
remaining with the individual union
site committees. It was a
struggle at times to maintain unity,
however whenever a problem
arose the Liaison Committee stepped up
to the plate. Two examples
of its success stand out in my mind.
In 1973 management were again
threatening redundancy, it was
resisted overall by a number of
measures including the withdrawal of
keyworkers on strike. In Birmingham
the transport workers came out
supported by a levy of all the
workers. It proved to be effective and
resulted in management backing off
without reaching their
redundancy target.
The other example concerned the
Liaison Committee taking action to
prevent an area of work being
transferred from the Birmingham
sites. Development work on aerospace
electronic applications had
taken place for some time in
preparation for a military contract. For
reasons only known to Management they
decided that the electronic
work should be transferred to the
Coventry site. The Committee,
after consulting the workforce, were
of the opinion that the
electronics work should remain in
Birmingham and identified a
vacant factory close by where the
Electronic Division could be
established. Despite the management
refusing to change their mind
the Liaison committee stood firm -
threatening to take action if the
management went ahead with their
plans. After a time,
management climbed down and they
purchased the factory
identified by the Committee and housed
the Electronic work and
workers in the York Road facility. The
cherry on the cake was that for
the first time in Birmingham, in 1978
the women employed in the
Electronics Division were paid the
skilled rate of pay. This was a
breakthrough for women workers in
Lucas Aerospace Birmingham
who were largely non existent in shop
floor areas let alone paid the
skilled rate!
In 1973 I started to become more
involved at national level, making
regular visits to Wortley Hall where
the Combine held their meetings.
Immediately I was struck by the high
level of debate from the
delegates of the other Lucas Aerospace
sites and realised I needed to
up my game if I was to make a
meaningful contribution to the
debate! It was the first time I had
come in contact with the delegates
from the other Aerospace sites and I
soon realised what a wealth of
talent existed within the Combine. And
the more I got involved the
more I knew that this was where I
wanted to further develop my
political understanding.
It was 1974 and an important stage in
the development of the
Combine. All sites were affiliated and
it had some notable successes
in preventing the management achieving
its redundancy targets.
However through natural wastage the
Lucas Aerospace workforce
was still declining. In an attempt to
halt the decline I was part of a
delegation of senior shop stewards who
met with Tony Benn the
Secretary of State for Industry. It
was at that meeting that Tony Benn
suggested that the Combine draw up an
Alternative Plan to what the
management were proposing.
As a result of discussion at Combine
and site level a Plan was drawn
up which advocated that Lucas
Aerospace workers should make
products that answered social need
rather than be made redundant.
(see Plan link). To promote the Plan I
travelled in my own time to
venues all over the U.K. In addition I
was invited to Sweden ( twice),
Germany and the U.S.A. By helping to
develop and promote an
alternative strategy for the company
meant a complete change in
approach to me as a union
representative. Instead of gearing up my
members to react to management
decisions I was encouraging them
to embrace the idea of alternatives to
aerospace work. For those not
entirely convinced about the switch to
socially useful production for
moral reasons, they realised that
management continuing to only
pursue aerospace work would result in
a further reduction of the
workforce. That threat of possible
future redundancy problems
concentrated their minds to support
the Combines approach!
The visits overseas helped me to
develop my communication skills
which, to be honest, were not my
strongest feature. As time went on
my confidence improved and I became
successful in getting the
message across. It all helped in my
personal development.
Following on from the establishment of
the Centre for Alternative
Industrial and Technology Systems
(CAITS) at North East London
Polytechnic, an approach was made to
me in 1977 by the Barrow
Cadbury Trust indicating that funds
were available to establish a
similar centre in the West Midlands. I
raised this at the Birmingham
Liaison Committee and I was given
responsibility, along with John
Routley and Bob Dodd, to explore the
possibility of establishing a
centre. The problem was how would we
go about it. The closest I had
come to University was when I went
past the University of
Birmingham on the tram as a kid on my
way to the Lickey Hills ( for
those not familier with Birmingham “
the Lickeys” was a favourite
spot for kids during the summer
holidays).
However by word of mouth we were able
to make contact. Given
that we had the promise of a grant we
thought it would be relatively
easy to set up a centre. However we
were soon made aware that
was not the case. Initial approaches
to the Universities of
Birmingham and Aston showed a very
clear lack of interest. We then
approached the University of Warwick.
Although there was support
from Lecturers the powers that be
rejected our approach. We were
led to believe that Lucas management,
who had close links with the
Universities approached, used their
influence to prevent us making
headway. After a frustrating lack of
progress we were finally
successful in 1981, in establishing
The Unit for Developing
Alternative Products at Coventry
Polytechnic (see UDAP link)
To assist us in the negotiations with
the Polytechnic we involved
Mike Cooley from the Aerospace
Willesden site because of his
experience in establishing CAITS. He
was also part of the delegation
who met with two generations of the
Cadbury family to formally
apply for the grant from the Barrow
Cadbury Trust. When I required
help and advice I most always
approached Mike, knowing that he
would always respond positively. I
will never forget the support he
gave me on so many occasion.
I didnt underestimate the importance
of us, as Combine
representatives, being able to
liberate academic resources of an
educational institution for the
benefit of the community. Whereas
previously, private business interests
had solely benefitted from
academic research - which wasn’t
always to the communities
benefit. The trade union movement,
thanks to charitable donations,
managed to get a foothold in academia
as a means of putting flesh
on the bones of socially useful
production.
I was by now totally immersed in Trade
Union work to the extent
that most of my working day was spent
carrying out the duties I was
elected to undertake. Whereas the shop
floor unions had an
agreement with management which
allowed their senior shop
stewards (Convenors) to carry out
their Trade Union duties on a full
time basis, that was not the case in
the Staff Departments. Therefore
I experienced, at times, considerable
pressure on me to curtail my
trade union activities. Management
were of the opinion I should
predominately carry out my duties as a
Draughtsman. Obviously
when my trade union activities covered
should areas as questioning
the companies investment and product
development policies and
representation on the UDAP Steering
Committee was in their eyes
not legitimate trade union territory.
At times I sailed close to the wind
and it culminated in a formal
meeting, involving the TASS Full Time
Officer, with the companies
Industrial Relation Officer in 1978.
During the course of the meeting
the IRO brought to my attention that
the company “employed me as
a Draughtsman not someone to bring
about social change”. After the
meeting the TASS FTO advised me that
“I should bend with the wind”
Such was our close relationship with
one of the engineering
magazines at that time, that in the
following weeks edition a full
report of the meeting took place,
including the IROs reference to me
not having a role in the company to
bring about “social change”
Looking back I don’t think the meeting
had much of an effect on my
approach to carrying out my Trade
Union duties especially with
regard to my involvement with the
Combine and the Alternative
Plan.
Despite the overwhelming support we
were getting, the Combine
was not making progress in
implementing its Alternative Plan.
Despite the initial encouragement from
Tony Benn the Governments
Department of Industry, bereft of
Benn, showed no inclination to
pressurise Lucas management into
opening negotiations with the
Combine. While the Official Trade
Unions made little effort to
support our efforts. In fact some Full
Time Officers were alleged to
be working hand in glove with
management to stop us succeeding.
Taking advantage of the situation in
1978, which was two years after
the Plan was launched, the management
announced that 2000
workers would be made redundant.
As a result of lobbying from
individual MPs, the Transport and
General Workers Union and Trade
Councils, the Confederation of
Ship Building Unions where pressured
into taking action. They called
a meeting in Birmingham of shop
stewards from all the unions off all
the sites of Lucas Aerospace. The 70
shop stewards nominated 14 of
their number to form a committee which
was representative of all
the unions and sites. All except two
of the committee were Combine
affiliates. I felt a sense of pride
that I was voted onto the CSEU
Committee given that the majority of
the representation was mainly
shop floor representatives from the
sites affected. Mike Cooley and
Phil Asquith acted as the Committees
technical experts.
In November 1978 the Committee went on
the road, spending six
weeks visiting all the sites,
interrogating local management and
talking with the site shop stewards.
The Committee were successful
in getting sufficient information to
compile a 300 page report with
the help of CAITS, who provided the
accommodation and resources.
The report “ Turning Industrial
Decline into Expansion” made
detailed criticisms of the managements
arguments and put forward
alternative proposals. While it was
not as wide ranging and political
as the Alternative Plan, it addressed
the issues arising from the
managements redundancy proposals.
Although the Committees report put the
CSEU national full time
officers in a strong negotiating
position when they met with the
Department of Industry and the Company
in February 1979, little use
was made of the reports content. In
fact the Department of Industry
had already prepared a package which
the union officials were
willing to accept. Despite the 14 man
Commitees rejection of the
package the CSEU and the Department of
Industry went onto reach
agreement with the company. This
involved £8m of tax payers
money being paid to the company with
the workforce eventually
being reduced by 650 in Liverpool and
350 in Bradford.
Although the agreement also referred
to the ongoing function of the
14 man CSEU Committee and the
establishment of a Working Party
to evaluate alternative products, the
management made sure that
the Committee were not provided with
the facilities to meet and
the Working Party was wound up. Why
did the company do that? We
can only assume that once the
Government had coughed up the
£8m, they were in a strong position to
walk away from the
agreement reached with the CSEU.
So what lessons did I learn from the
above experience. That while
the Combine was in control of events
then progress was made. Once
the Trade Union National Officers
through the CSEU became involved
then the ideas and products in the
Alternative Plan went out of the
window and they settled the dispute
with management in the time
honoured way. Unfortunately this meant
a further reduction in the
Lucas Aerospace workforce and the
company benefitting from more
taxpayers money.
So what is the answer? Give more power
to working people by
making the workplace more democratic
and therefore provide them
with as much power and influence at
Board level as the
shareholders? The problem with going
down that route is that we
would continue to operate in the
market economy which considers
that profit, for example, to the
company, is the be all and end all and
does not take into account the wider
social costs arising from that
profit made.
I am of the opinion that in the event
of any other workers or
community groups in the future go
along the same path as the
Combine, and produced an Alternative
Plan, they would face the
same problems - unless major
structural changes are made to how
the economy operates. Only when the
economy takes into account
the interests of the community as a
whole will Alternative Plans,
along the lines of the Combines, be
successfully implemented.
In 1979 Mick Cooney the Combine
Chairman resigned, left Lucas
Aerospace and went on a 2 year course
at Ruskin College. Following
on from that I was elected as Chairman
of the Combine a position
which I held until I left Lucas
Aerospace in 1982.
By then I was involved as a lay
representative at all levels of the
Lucas Aerospace trade union
organisation. In TASS I was the
department representative, the
Shaftmoor Lane site Secretary and
an active member of the Branch. While
on a multi-union basis, I was
Chairman of the Birmingham Liaison
Committee and Chairman of the
Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards
Committee. In addition I
was the Combine representative on the
UDAP Advisory Committee
and I was always on hand to respond to
requests for giving
presentations on the Plan. You could
say I was at the height of my
powers - but that was to change
dramatically two years later!
Management had made it clear of their
intentions to install new
technology on the Birmingham sites in
an attempt to improve
profitability. As shop stewards we
were fully aware of the
implications of this policy especially
with regard to maintaining
manning levels. To offset the impact
of its introduction the multi-
union Liaison Committee drew up and
negotiated a New Technology
Agreement with management. It had been
jointly agreed that prior
to implementation agreement had to be
reached on all the issues
involved.
In November 1981 management installed
Visual Display Units in
Shaftmoor Lane Clerical Departments
without attempting to reach
agreement with the Trade Unions. As a
result the Liaison Committee
organised a meeting of all manual and
staff union representative
which then led to a mass meeting of
all the site workforce. Their
response was a vote to go on strike
until the VDUs were removed.
Unbeknown to Ron Mills and I, a TASS
union member contacted the
unions Full Time Officer and informed
him of his displeasure about
the strike decision. The FTO then
instructed us to have a meeting
solely with the TASS members to see
whether they supported the
decision reached by the mass meeting.
This interference in the multi-union
democratic decision making,
was typical of TASS. Its opposition to
the Combine and its activities is
well documented, to the extent that it
collaborated with
management to weaken the Combines
influence. The decision
reached to go on strike by all of the
Shaftmoor lane workforce,
originated from a recommendation of
the Liaison Committee which
as a multi-union committee was
recognised by the Confederation of
Shipbuilding Unions as being part of
the official trade union
movement.
Despite our protestations we had to go
ahead with the meeting and
despite our best efforts the site TASS
members voted not to support
the strike. This meant we had to cross
the picket line of the workers
who were on strike. Although the other
unions were disappointed
they were sympathetic to our
predicament.
Although we managed to persuade our
members to contribute to a
levy to support those on strike, my
failure to convince the TASS
members to go on strike meant that I
did not consider it credible to
retain my role as Chairman of the
multi-union committee.
I was bitterly disappointed. A lot of
time and effort had gone into
making the Liaison Committee an
effective force in facing up to
management on common issues.
Encouraging the individual unions
that they had more in common than what
separated them.
In January 1982, my trade union journey
in Lucas Aerospace, as an
activist, came to an end. It was the
time of year when I sought re-
election as the union representative
in the Drawing Office and as
TASS site secretary. I was defeated in
both elections by candidates
who I considered were more
conciliatory to managements point of
view than ever I was.
So I now had to consider where my
future lay. Given my history I was
not in a strong position. Any future
redundancies I am sure would
include me on the list. I needed to
look and apply for jobs as a matter
of some urgency. I was lucky. I
identified two job opportunities and
applied for them.
Birmingham Trades Council where in the
throes of establishing a
Trade Union Resource Centre and were
advertising job vacancies for
a Co-ordinator and two Research
Workers. I applied and was offered
a Research Workers post after failing
to get the Co-ordinator post ( I
was in good company because Derek
Robinson and Sir Stan Yapp, the
former leader of the City Council also
applied and didn’t get the post)
I also successfully applied for the
Group Organisation Development
Officer in the newly established
Employment and Economic
Development Department of Sheffield
City Council. Looking for a
new challenge I decided to accept the
job offer in Sheffield and
started in April 1982. ( and that is
another story)
So after 22 years I left Lucas
Aerospace and as a family we moved to
Sheffield. I very much appreciated the
good wishes I received from
the shop stewards off all sites, who
thanked me for the work I had
carried out and wished me well for the
future. (I still have the letters
and cards) It also severed the
Salisbury family links with Lucas when I
left the company. My father worked
there for over 40 years, my
mother 20 years and an uncle for 30
years. My understanding is that
I was the only active trade unionist
in the family.
 |
| Brian during filming with Lowkey in 2019 |
Brian Salisbury June 2020
