Renewal or resilience? The persistence of shop steward organisation in the Tyneside Maritime Construction Industry.

The debate surrounding 'union renewal' has resulted in the emergence of a significant body of literature. Alternative views have ranged from a focus on the changing strategies of national trade unions to rebuilding their membership in terms of a move from 'servicing' to 'organising'. Others have suggested that the locus for union renewal will not succeed through a 'top down' process, but rather the focus should be concerned with a 'bottom up' regeneration at workplace level. The central argument from this perspective is that, while developments at national level may be important, the impetus of trade union renewal depends crucially on organisation and activity at the workplace. It is claimed that it is within the workplace where recruitment and replenishment of union members is predominantly achieved and maintained. Together with this, it is maintained that the experience of workers at the workplace is far removed from trade union initiatives at national level, and it is at the workplace where the majority of members are actively involved in unionism. Such active workplace unionism has led to a further perspective emerging in this debate, a question of renewal or resilience. Empirical studies have illustrated that workplace organisation has persisted in some areas without the 'need' to build workplace activity through a 'new' generation of activists. It has also been claimed that this persistence could be attributed to the neglected role of political activism amongst workplace representatives. Nonetheless, the underlying theme of these arguments, and indeed a major focus of this article, is that by solely using top down strategies for renewal and survival, trade unions are neglecting their existing traditional sources of power. However, the nature and extent of resilience remains only partially examined within the literature, and the renewal arguments have been made principally, although not exclusively, in relation to the public sector. Therefore, it is the intention of this article to provide some new empirical data, from a traditional industry in the private sector, to contribute to the resilience debate.

The focus of the research is upon the Tyneside Maritime Construction Industry (TMCI) and the assessment of shop steward and workplace organisation. The article begins by examining the literature relating to the renewal/resilience debates and draws upon three themes identified as being the central features of workplace unionism. Firstly, it examines the effectiveness of shop steward organisation in two case studies from the TMCI. Then it considers the levels of activity in membership participation in these workplaces. Finally, it assesses the significance of workplace union democracy in the TMCI. The findings are very positive and indicate support for a thesis of resilience. However, the empirical data also pushes the resilience arguments further than most, in that it illustrates, not simply resilience in a reactive form, but a proactive and on-going form of unionism. Together with this, it introduces a further development to the debate in that, in the second case study it is illustrated how union organisation has to be rebuilt with each new contract. There is therefore a constant, ongoing process of rebuilding an undoubtedly well-organised and vigorous unionism. Some consideration of the conditions of this process of rebuilding unionism is outlined within the case study and the discussion.

The debate on union renewal

As the decline of trade unionism gathered pace after decades of extensive legislative reforms to restrict union activities, together with employer strategies seeking to demobilise trade unionism, academic analysis turned attention to prognosis for union survival and growth. An abundance of literature has emerged concerned with the development of national trade union strategies to 'modernise' themselves into 'new unions'. Such strategies have included a series of mergers of trade unions (Willman & Cave 1994), internal reorganisation of structures (for example Heery, 1996; Fairbrother, 2000) and the promotion of services to members with the focus largely upon encouraging recruitment and retention (for example Heery, 1996). Approaches such as these were adopted from recommendations by the Special Review Body (SRB) of the TUC who conducted a series of reviews with the focus largely upon addressing concerns of falling membership levels.

By 1994, the TUC relaunched itself (TUC, 1997; Heery, 1998) with the adoption of a 'new unionism' policy encouraging a move from 'servicing' to 'organising'. A 'New Unionism Task Force' was established in 1996 which initiated the TUC 'Organising Academy' in 1998. The Organising Academy provides a 12 month training programme to trainees who then become 'new organisers' for individual trade unions organising new activists and recruiting new members. At the centre of the organising approach is the notion of the 'empowerment' of workers to identify their own problems and their own agendas through collective organisation. Although there are suggestions that this approach has had some positive impact on recruitment strategies (New Unionism Project, 1998), there is also evidence of negative outcomes for the new organisers themselves such as long working hours and conflict in their employment relationship with unions with some resulting in dismissals. (New Unionism Project, 1998a, 1998c). There is also evidence of some resistance within unions towards new organisers, with pressure from union activists to reserve organising positions for internal representatives. Yet, despite what could be perceived as pessimistic evidence, there has been a positive impact on union recruitment which suggests that this approach has been successful to some extent. However, crucial questions need to be raised in terms of solely relying on this method for union survival and growth. If the organisers' sole objective is that of recruitment, then what happens to the newly recruited members in terms of support at the workplace? How is this 'new' membership to be retained? What are the implications of a strategy that emphasises workplace self-activity for 'new' union members? Surely if a major aim is to support unions' survival and growth, then more of a focus should be placed upon supporting new union members at the workplace in order to build effective and self-sustaining local organisation.

Whilst not denying that such national driven developments are important, it is also suggested that by solely using a 'top down' approach, unions may be neglecting their traditional areas of active organisation at the workplace and how to maintain these sources of power. Such arguments are the key premise of this article and can also be identified in the union workplace renewal literature which argues that the focus for union renewal should be more concerned with a 'bottom up' regeneration at the workplace.

The central argument from this approach is that it is within the workplace wherein lies the reality of unionism for most members and where unions constantly organise and renew (Fairbrother, 1989, 1996, 2000; Fosh 1993). Hence, from this perspective, union renewal can become a possibility through the regeneration of active workplace based structures. In this view, attention is drawn to features of trade union organisation neglected in analyses concerned with top down strategies. The focus lies on three important features of workplace unionism; the importance of collective bargaining, the significance of union democracy and the role of workplace activists. The first two features are outlined in Fairbrother's (Op.cit) analysis of renewal and other empirical studies also provide evidence of opportunities for union activity in these areas (see for example Dundon, 1997; Fosh, Op.cit). For Fosh, the main focus for union renewal at the workplace is through 'a careful choice of leadership style' (1993:589) which encourages collective participation and interest of members thereby increasing the strength of workplace unionism. Fairbrother also suggests that more participative forms of workplace unionism are critical, particularly where there has traditionally been more centralised and hierarchical organisation. However, a major problem in this area is that workplace renewal arguments have been made principally in relation to public sector unionism. Although the private sphere is acknowledged in some of the literature, there is some tentative pessimism relating to workplace renewal in this sector. One example is in Fairbrother's (1989) analysis of traditional manufacturing in the Midlands where unionism was severely challenged. His argument becomes one concerning the 'hollowing out' of the traditional steward form, with bureaucratisation becoming part of the defence of unionism. He cautions that, in the private sector, bureaucratised shop steward organisation, arising from the Donovan Commission (1968) recommendations, and also sectionalism, often found in traditional manufacturing, may weaken the resistance of workplace organisation. On the other hand, some studies have found that such a scale of bureaucratisation has been exaggerated (for example see Darlington, 1994:I7). In addition to this, Gall (1999:154) suggests that care needs to be taken in criticising sectionalism for he claims it can play a positive role in helping to create solidarity. From his and others perspective, it is argued that the workplace renewal literature neglects the role of political activism amongst workplace representatives.

Within this view is the argument that priority in the 'renewal' literature is given to 'structural' barriers to potential renewal rather than an understanding of aims, objectives, historical, economical and political influences (Kelly, 1996; Gall, 1995, 1999; Darlington, 1994, 2002). Darlington's (Ibid) empirical studies illustrate the crucial role that left-wing activists can play in shaping the nature of collective workplace relations. Equally important in his findings, and an issue closely related to this article, is that despite many commentators' claim that shop steward organisation has weakened, particularly in manufacturing, independent action by shop stewards and rank and file members' self activity remains very strong in some sectors. Other empirical studies have also illustrated that workplace organisation has persisted in some areas without the 'need' to build workplace activity through a 'new' generation of activists (see for e.g. Beale, 1999; Fitzgerald et.al. 1996). Therefore, it is suggested that resilience, rather than renewal, may be a more appropriate term to apply to such workplaces. However, the nature and extent of resilience remains only partially examined within the literature and reference to traditional industries renowned for solidaristic trade unionism remains sparse.

Therefore, it is the intention of this article to present some new empirical evidence from such an industry, not only to contribute to the resilience arguments, but to also to introduce further developments. Firstly, rather than simply illustrating resilience in a reactive form, the following case studies reveal a proactive and on-going form of unionism. Yet, despite both studies demonstrating these characteristics and being part of the same industry, the two case studies are very different. The first case study clearly supports a thesis of resilience and the second demonstrates how unionism is re-established again and again. It is this on-going process of rebuilding a dynamic unionism and the way in which continuity of activism is maintained which also deserves some consideration as a development in the renewal/resilience debates.

Background to case study

There is some difficulty in defining an industry still commonly known on Tyneside as 'the yards'. I am using the term Maritime Construction Industry to encompass the building of ships, ship repair, ship conversion, offshore fabrication and the decommissioning of oil rigs which are all part of the Tyneside 'yards'. Although each of these would appear to be separate industries with different products, markets and demands, the common factor is the workforce which is able to work in either one of these sectors.

The historical development of the TMCI, shop steward organisation and related industrial relations issues are historically well documented (Clegg, H.A. 1964; Webb, S&B 1920; Clarke, JF. 1966, 1977). Within the industry there were strong traditions of trade unionism which has been Byzantine in its complexity, sectional in its nature and rooted in workplace organisation. There existed within this complexity a critical network of relationships. Shop steward organisation was close to the membership with yard meetings providing the basis of decision-making and the foundation of the stewards' power. Senior stewards and convenors were linked together through the 'confed' (Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions) and had close working relationships with union full time officers who had often worked in the yards themselves and whose sole responsibilities might well be to continue to deal with them. It was this trade unionism or, more neutrally, industrial relations, that was often cited as a key factor in the decline of the UK industry and prompted repeated analysis and proposals for reform (see for example, CIR 1971 and Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee, 1966).

Slow adaptation to modern industrial conditions, informal wage negotiating procedures, demarcation, apprentice regulation, the division of labour and sectionalism were all widely identified as major industrial relations problems in the industry. It was also recognised that these issues were related to the traditional customs and attitudes in industrial relations practices by all social actors involved.

Trade union organisation was inevitably challenged through the decline of the shipbuilding industry (Stirling & Bridgford, 1985), the period of trade union mergers which challenged the old sectional strengths and a managerial offensive leading to a temporary and itinerant workforce and, in some companies, trade union derecognition. Yet despite these challenges to trade unions organisation, for those remaining in the industry, trade unionism had been a part of the workplace culture (Roberts, 1993) and re-emerged in unofficial disputes that reflected the long-standing adversarial nature of industrial relations and the continued significance of a solidaristic trade unionism. It is the intention of this article to observe trade union organisation in the industry today with a particular focus on shop steward and workplace organisation. It will examine three important features of workplace unionism as outlined in the literature; the effectiveness of shop steward organisation, levels of activity in membership participation and the significance of workplace union democracy.

Method and setting

These case studies are part of a wider, ongoing research project involving industrial relations in TMCI. They are primarily concerned with shop steward and workplace organisation in the industry with the major focus on the manual sections of the workforce. The studies were conducted in two primary organisations on the River Tyne in the North East of England, and for reasons of confidentiality, pseudonyms will be used for each company throughout this paper.

At the time of the fieldwork, the two organisations employed approximately 1000 manual workers of sixteen different trades. Union density in both companies at the time was estimated at 90-99% by FTOS and convenors, with members organised on the basis of occupation/trade. The trade unions involved in the industry are the GMB, AEEU (now Amicus), UCATT and MSF (now Amicus) with the former two possessing the highest membership. The first case study company, Ship Repair Ltd, recognises all unions as the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU) while the second, Shipbuilders.Co, has only a single union agreement with the GMB.

The fieldwork was conducted between March and December 2001 The method used for data collection was the case study which comprised semi-structured interviews and observation. The interviews lasted approximately 60-90 minutes, were tape recorded and fully transcribed and the transcriptions were content-analysed. Coding cards were utilised throughout the interviews to help collect numerical data such as personal details and attitude scales. Together with this, data in the form of observation from shop floor discussions between workers and shop stewards was collected from tours of the yards. Also, continuous non-participant observation was used when visiting each site to conduct interviews. Finally, observation of onsite shop steward committee meetings, meetings with FTOS, management and members and CSEU meetings offsite were used as a source of data collection. Full use was also made of documentary material from the unions, companies and local press.

A total of 23 interviews were conducted with union representatives in the organisations and union officers and officials representing all trade unions in the industry. The union representatives consisted of 5 convenors and 12 shop stewards, two being senior shop stewards and one a deputy shop steward. The average age of the shop steward and convenor sample was 40-49 years and length of service 24 years, the longest being 35 and the shortest 18. The average length of time as shop steward was 14 years, the longest serving being 22 years and the shortest 5 years. Of the total sample of union representatives interviewed, 77% had served as shop steward in more than one yard on the Tyne. Four managers were also interviewed, two from each yard who were directly involved in industrial relations. The aim was to explore the effectiveness of shop steward organisation in the industry, levels of activity in membership participation and the significance of union democracy, all of which are important factors in the union workplace renewal/resilience debates.

Case study

Shop steward and workplace organisation in the Tyneside Maritime Construction Industry

Ship Repair Ltd

At Ship Repair Ltd four unions are recognised forming the CSEU which includes the GMB, AEEU, MSF and UCATT. For these unions, occupational segregation remains to distinguish the unions, however, despite separate membership, the unions work together through a joint shop stewards committee (JSSC). The JSSC consists of 4 convenors, two from each of the largest unions in the yard the GMB and AEEU, and eight shop stewards representing each trade and union in the yard. Only one convenor has full time status and works from the trade unions' office supplied by management with the use of items such as telephone, photocopier and PC. The 4 convenors also form the 'yard committee' which negotiates directly with management on most industrial relations issues including collective bargaining at plant level. Despite this form of organisation illustrating characteristics of centralised, hierarchical organisation and bureaucratisation, which has led to pessimistic accounts of workplace union renewal (see Fairbrother, 1989, 1996) due to causing less participative forms of unionism through minimising/excluding steward and member involvement, the findings which follow serve to contest this.

The yard committee, following meetings with management on any issue, takes full report-backs of discussions/ negotiations with management to the JSSC where any decisions to be taken are arrived at collectively. The JSSC then identify any matters of concern to their members and, if necessary, take such issues to section meetings or mass meetings. In this way, the shop stewards 'leadership' involve members in activities and decision making rather than 'act' on behalf of the workforce. This evidence illustrates the significance of union democracy and the collective interest and participation of members essential to workplace unionism. Indeed, observation of a mass meeting did provide evidence of the active participation of the rank-and-file membership of this workplace.

During fieldwork, a series of mass meetings were being held in relation to annual pay bargaining together with alterations to the yard agreement between the CSEU and Ship Repair Ltd. It transpired that these issues were causing many industrial relations problems in the yard as the convenor explained,

   We still haven't settled up for the wage claim for this
   year yet and we're into the seventh month. The company's
   put about 30 proposals to us and every one has been
   rejected, well the negotiating team have the power to reject
   it. If we think there's a possibility that everyone out there
   would accept it, we take it to a mass meeting which we
   did the last time and they hoyed it out. It doesn't matter
   at the end of the day what we say, we either go to a mass
   meeting with the recommendation to accept or reject,
   they've (the workforce) got the final say because it's their
   terms and conditions as well as ours.

In this way, the shop stewards at Ship Repair Ltd do not view the membership as passive agents and the relationship can be viewed as a two-way interaction between the members and stewards as was also highlighted in previous research by Darlington (1994, 1999). Indeed observation of a meeting provided evidence of the two-way process with discussions and arguments between the stewards and members. When queried as to whether this was an unusual occurrence due to the current circumstances, the convenor noted that the meeting that had been observed was typical of a mass meeting,

   where there's 500 blokes swearing and shouting at us ...

The convenors were asked if the workforce needed to be encouraged to attend mass meetings and I was informed that they never needed persuasion to attend such meetings which usually achieved 100% turnout. However, the problems with the current negotiations were causing industrial unrest and as the Industrial Relations Manager informed me,

   It's been going on for about 20 months now and we're all
   sick of it, negotiating, or trying to, negotiate a new pay
   deal with new working conditions etc. I mean we recently
   thought that we'd actually cracked it and got the agreement
   through and we had the national officials in from
   London as well as the local full time officials and they,
   the yard committee and the shop stewards, all of them
   recommended that the agreement they had reached with
   the company could be accepted. Then at a mass meeting
   it was turned down.

The problem had escalated and industrial action was threatened by the workforce in the form of a strike and overtime ban. However, this action did not take place as the shop stewards re-negotiated the agreement and the issue was resolved. What was striking about this agreement was that it was re-written and negotiated primarily with the JSSC and the management at plant level. The full time officials (FTOs) were approached to attend negotiations at Ship Repair Ltd only when industrial unrest became volatile. Hence, it was clear that the shop stewards in this company were able to work independently of the local and national officials which was also an aspect highlighted in a study by Gall (1995). He utilises Darlington's (1993) postulation of three contradictory tendencies of shopfloor unionism. Those of resistance/ accommodation, democracy/bureaucracy and independence/ dependence (Gall 1995; 60). In this case study of shop stewards organisation of Ship Repair Ltd there is strong evidence of resistance, democracy and independence which assumes the relative health of workplace unionism and hence resilience in that shop steward organisation has remained stable.

A further form of resilience from this case study can be identified in the number of shop stewards in the yard representing each trade. Although in previous years the number of stewards was much higher, the decrease has occurred due to a reduction in the workforce numbers and also trades which now cease to exist. The management are evidently frustrated at the number of shop stewards in the yard,

   We've got 14 actual shop stewards. Too many. The problem
   is that the current agreement says that there will be one
   shop steward for each recognised union and their deputies,
   but the GMB is broken up into welders, shipwrights,
   platers, burners, caulkers, drillers, blacksmiths, boiler-smiths,
   riggers, they all insist on having one each. It's
   historical, they feel that a welder can't represent a plater
   for example, which in the old days may have been the
   case because there was strict demarcation between them
   all. But some trades are now becoming outdated and we
   don't recruit any more of them.

This was an issue evident on the shop floor with some trades having only 3 or 4 workers employed. However, these workers persisted in maintaining the protection of their trade and were insistent in having shop steward representation as the blacksmiths' steward explained,

   I'm a blacksmith by trade, there's only 3 of us left now,
   one is a team leader and there's only me and my mate
   and that's it so basically I'm doing it just to keep us in a
   job. Cos obviously a lot of the work has died out but the
   little bit that's left we've got to try and keep cos y'knaa
   your worthy brother's love is just 'stab him in the back
   and pinch a little bit here and everywhere'.

Again, this evidence implies a form of resilience in that, despite management's frustration at the number of shop stewards and the 'dying' trades, each trade has remained to be represented despite the small numbers. Together with this, resilience is evident in the determination to protect the work of the trades. The underpinning of resilience in this yard appears to be that the organisation has not had to change and remains stable. However, there is also a clear indication of the possible 'historical' problems with sectionalism and demarcation in the above quote. Indeed one steward commented that there could be friction on occasion amongst the shop stewards due to demarcation issues. Although it has been argued that such sectionalism may weaken the resistance of workplace organisation as cautioned by Fair-brother (1989, 1996) it was clear in this study that sectionalism did not appear to divide the workforce or the shop steward organisation as illustrated below.

All of the shop stewards reported that they had frequent formal sectional meetings with their trades and were also available to members on an informal daily basis at tea and dinner breaks. Issues brought up at such meetings by the membership were either taken directly to the convenor, or discussed at the JSSC monthly meeting. Shop stewards in the yard meet together 'at least once a month' on 'informative' issues and emergency meetings are usually held during annual pay bargaining. The general view of all shop stewards interviewed was that their relationship with the members was very good as they were 'also their workmates'. However the relationship with management was perceived as very poor as was noted by one convenor,

   I cannot trust any of them and what they say. At the end
   of the day they all here to make money and make as
   much as possible and I'm here to protect them down
   there.

The view from management was much of the same on their relationship with shop stewards,

   I would say honestly not very good. The shop stewards
   think the management are incompetent ... it's not one-sided,
   it is both sides, there is a culture of 'us and them' and it's
   not just from the union side, certain managers have it too
   and don't see why we should have unions, they consider
   them to be taking away their responsibility and power
   and authority, they see them as being destructive, negative
   in approach ... to be honest, I don't think they use them
   properly, they don't use the unions to the full extent. I
   think there's room for improvement on both sides.

Nonetheless, despite these suggestions of a poor working relationship, I was informed by both sides that the convenors and management communicated on an almost daily basis, either by email on the company intranet system, or in the Industrial Relations manager's office. Most of these meetings were on informal day-to-day issues rather than formal negotiation processes. Some of the stewards less experienced in negotiating techniques found formal meetings with the management frustrating. These new stewards are encouraged by the yard committee to 'sit in' on meetings with management in order to gain experience in negotiating techniques from the more experienced stewards. Despite finding meetings with management fairly frustrating initially, the less experienced stewards explained that they 'learned' from the 'older' stewards. This, again, could arguably demonstrate resilience in that this group of shop stewards are attempting to stabilise the shop steward organisation in the yard. However, this is not to make a claim that shop steward organisation in this yard has remained absolutely consistent over the years, for as Darlington also notes, 'the nature of shop steward organisation is not a fixed static phenomenon' (1994:4). Nevertheless, the research conducted in this yard provided evidence of strong shop steward organisation and healthy workplace union democracy. Rather than illustrating the 'building' of a workplace union 'renewal', it is argued that 'resilience' is more appropriate to this organisation as there have evidently been no external constraining factors which have challenged the union organisation, allowing it to remain stable. However, such stability is not present throughout the TMCI as is demonstrated in the following case study.

Shipbuilders.Co

At Shipbuilders. Co there is a single union agreement with the GMB. The previous owner had recognised unions combined in the CSEU prior to liquidation in 1993, although the new owner was prepared to recognise only one union. The yard agreement and employment contracts were negotiated between GMB union officials and the new employer prior to the re-opening of the yard. At the time of the fieldwork study, there were 5 representatives, one full time convenor, 3 shop stewards and a nightshirt spokesperson, each representing the two main GMB trades in the yard, the platers and the welders. They are supplied with a union office with a telephone but no PC, however, use of other equipment in freely available to the shop stewards in the main administration office. Although it initially appeared that shop steward organisation and relationship with their members was fairly similar to Ship Repair Ltd, it was discovered that there was a different structure in this yard due to certain internal and external constraining factors causing more instability than in the previous case study.

First of all, the workforce are all employed on temporary contracts and redundancies occur frequently when a client contract reaches completion. In these instances, there is no workforce or shop stewards at all in the yard. When a new contract is acquired and workers employed, the 'new', usually the same, workforce are entitled to elect 'new' representatives who are 'usually the previous post-holders'. In addition to this, a further difference to Ship Repair Ltd identified was that, when there is a full quota of 'temporary' workers and more employees are required to complete a client contract within the desired time-scale, sub-contractors are employed and as the convenor explained,

   When we start to get more and more contractors in, they
   come in with their own representatives, their shop
   stewards will address their problems, initially through
   their own company, and then if that doesn't get addressed,
   their shop stewards will come in and talk to me and I will
   take the problem on so I'm like the go-between between
   all the shop stewards and all the management.

These subcontractor workers have their own representatives as they are in trades of other unions as opposed to the GMB, the only recognised union in the yard. The initial assumption of this relationship was one of sectionalism although the convenor noted that all of the shop stewards worked together,

   What happens is that we broker a deal and that
   information gets passed down to them, if they're not
   extremely happy with it, I get feedback from them all
   and we look at that, then we try to make sure that
   everybody's happy.

However it was noted on several occasions by the shop stewards that this yard was a 'GMB yard' as this was the only recognised union. Nonetheless, it became apparent that this does not mean that the yard employs only GMB trades. In shipbuilding, as opposed to ship repair, when a new contract begins, the initial skills required are predominantly those of the GMR trades, half way through a contract it is likely to be 50/50 GMB and AEEU trades, then at the final outfitting stage, predominantly AEEU trades are required. Indeed the GMB convenor noted that on occasions, other union trades outnumbered those of the recognised union,

   It got to the point once when they outnumbered us. If
   they had got a yard meeting together, if it was allowed to
   happen, the GMB could find themselves being voted out
   of a situation or outvoted in a situation and the electricians
   holding the day.

Again this quote implies that sectionalism may be a problem in shop steward and workplace organisation in this yard. However, it became clear during fieldwork that the shop stewards frequently worked together to try to alleviate and control problems of sectionalism amongst the trades in the workforce, the issues usually centred upon differential pay rates. Despite the bargaining of pay for this company being set at national level, sectional disputes have arisen over pay arrangements, either between different union trades or between trades in the same union. In one instance, welders were being paid a bonus rate for working in smaller spaces and the platers viewed this as an injustice and demanded the same rates of pay. The shop stewards met with management to negotiate the differential rates of pay and the problem was resolved. In another instance, subcontractors working in the yard were not receiving the same rates of pay as the full time workforce and unofficial strike action was conducted by the subcontractors. Shipbuilders.Co workforce began to hold unofficial meetings without the attendance of the shop stewards to consider whether to support those out on strike. Management viewed this as a breach of contract and locked out the workforce. The shop stewards again met with management to attempt to control the situation then held a mass meeting with the workforce. However, no compromise could be settled and the local FTO was called in to alleviate the situation. Although this evidence would imply that the leadership of the shop stewards in this yard, in terms of their relationship with members, was weaker than the previous case study, it ought to be noted as Darling-ton (2000:8) points out,

   ... rank-and-file members' self-activity [is] absolutely
   central to workplace unionism.

The shop stewards in this yard evidently had to deal with a more dynamic workforce and try to control their independent initiatives,

   You get accused of being a lackey and a management
   mouthpiece, things like that. By certain ones. And if that
   kind of thing affects you then you're in the wrong job. You
   have to have skin like a rhino.

However, the leadership and organisation of the shop stewards in this yard was not a cause for concern by the larger external local union and they were left to their own independent decision making, as one FTO commented,

   We have a seasoned shop steward in there, I just let things
   be. When you've got the right individuals in place then
   you'll be okay

Indeed, the 'right individuals' are chosen by the workforce in shop steward elections which occur on an annual basis. Again, this evidence illustrates the importance of union democracy in this yard. However, it came to my attention during fieldwork that obtaining shop stewards for representation of some trades had been a problem to the convenor.

   The rigging department should have a steward ... but I
   cannot for the life of me get one of them to stand up and
   be counted. I've tried, I've struggled, I've cajoled, I've
   embarrassed them, I've threatened them, I've had the
   delegate come in and talk to them, now the best you can
   get is to get someone to do their rota for them.

It became clear that a problem in this industry, when attempting to obtain a representative, was the issue of job security due to the temporary contracts and a fear of being blacklisted by employers for being a shop steward. Indeed, the convenor informed me that he had previously been blacklisted by all of the employers on the River Tyne for 10 years due to being actively involved in the shop steward leadership of a long dispute and was forced to find work in another region. When Shipbuilders. Co re-opened, they were 'desperate' for skilled workers and he was eventually employed 'back on the river', however as he illustrated,

   When I first started here, the ex-shop steward here knew
   me from years ago at Offshore Holdings and also at what
   was [AN Other Company]. I was shop steward there as
   well, a gobby gobshite. He said 'pleased to see you're
   here, do you fancy this job as shoppie?' Then the engineer
   [foreman] came over, a lad who I worked with in Southern
   Ireland in 1976 and he said 'do you fancy a foreman's
   hat? He'd been told by the other lads, 'this is a potential
   shop steward' so one of the ways to undermine the shop
   stewards is to give him a white hat and he joins the
   enemy territory, you know the 'us and them' type thing.
   So give a shop steward a white hat and you've got control
   of him.

This evidence, together with the issue of 'blacklisting', illustrates how management aim to impede effective shop steward organisation through attempting to eliminate those with strong leadership style. As is clear, however, in this instance their attempts to undermine this potentially effective shop steward failed. The above quote also provides more evidence of a culture of 'us and them' in the industry and when queried as to the existence of such a culture in this yard I was informed,

   Of course there is. That emanates from the shop floor.
   They still see 'them' as the enemy. '"Them" bastards up
   there'.

However, the convenor perceived the relationship between the management and shop stewards as 'very good'. In addition to this, when queried as to the relationship between the shop stewards I was told that it was also very good as 'we're workmates'. Indeed the evidence of the shop steward organisation in the yard did appear to be proactive. One factor which confirmed this was that, when fieldwork began in the yard, there were only 3 stewards and on the last visit this had risen to 5 due to the persistence of the stewards to expand shop steward organisation. The stewards were also in the process of re-establishing a shop stewards committee and met together on a daily basis to discuss issues of members. They had also negotiated with management to re-establish the yard's historical, traditional 'grouse meeting', whereby once a month they meet with the workforce onsite, during working hours, in order to identify any grievances of the members. In this way, the shop stewards are not isolated from the membership and the meetings are a two-way interaction between the two parties. During fieldwork, I was allowed to attend a grouse meeting and observed this two way interaction. It was clear that the workforce were not passive and there was evidence of the membership articulating their grievances and attempts to influence the stewards on issues they perceived were a sense of injustice. The attendance was of very high numbers which provided evidence that workplace unionism in this yard was healthy in terms of the membership taking collective forms of activity to defend their immediate interests. Indeed, I was informed that the usual attendance to such meetings was 90-99%. After such meetings, the stewards then attend a 'post grouse meeting' with management to articulate the grievances of the shop floor and negotiate on any issues of importance to the membership. Results of such meetings are recorded and cascaded back to the workforce via sectional meetings and leaflet handouts which include a summary of discussions with management on issues raised at grouse meetings.

Communication with the membership is of high significance to the shop stewards in this yard. Due to the small numbers of shop stewards at the time of the fieldwork, they aim to ensure they are available to members continuously during the working day. One of the ways in which this is conducted is through what the convenor describes as being 'highly visible' to members,

   Part of the job is walking and talking and being highly
   visible, that's why I wear a blue hat and apart from visitors,
   that's one of the only blue hats you see on site.

The colour of the hard hat at this yard distinguishes between workers and seniority with the shop floor manual workers wearing red hats and foremen, superintendents and management wearing white hats. Only visitors wear a blue hard hat which raises attention when walking through the yard. Hence, by wearing a blue hard hat, the convenor is highly detectable on the shop floor. However, this has posed a problem with management as noted by the convenor,

   I wear this hat because I want to be visible so the lads can
   see me. Even though I've been told on numerous
   occasions to get the right coloured hat and say 'yes, ok
   I'll do that straight away' and then I go away and do
   whatever I want. I'll do my own thing. It's a minor quibble,
   he's (manager) just being pedantic, he's got a bee in his
   bonnet about something else you know ... and he's having
   a go at me and whatever, but I still wear my blue hat.

A further contentious issue between shop stewards and management was the use of mobile phones. Lower management complained that the shop floor workers were using mobiles whilst working which they claimed was interfering with the production process. A meeting between management and shop stewards on this issue resulted in the use of mobile phones only being allowed during breaks. However, the shop stewards maintained that they used their mobile phones for communication with their membership on day to day issues due to the small number of stewards and the size of the yard. After some negotiation, management supplied the shop stewards with pagers in order that they were available for any grievances or problems that arose from the shop floor. In this way, the shop stewards were displaying how continuity of activism is maintained in this yard in their resistance to a management attempt to impede communication of one form between shop stewards and their members. This proactive style of unionism was also displayed in other forms, particularly in sustaining union organisation as illustrated below.

In terms of maintaining workplace unionism, fieldwork at this yard provided evidence to illustrate how the shop stewards ensured they maintained high levels of union membership. The first is the 'show of union cards' held on random occasions in the yard as outlined by the convenor,

   I've got a show of cards on next week, a GMB show of
   cards. Most of the lads are on check off which means that
   the money comes out of their wages every week. Now all
   I then have to do is go up and see the timekeeper and say
   'can you give me a print out for check off reasons' and
   that gives me everybody at that time who's on check off.
   So those guys don't have to do anything with regards to a
   show of cards, it's the other ones, they have to either bring
   their card in, I'll sign it or mark them off, or they'll bring
   their membership slip, which lets me know their number.
   Now some of the fly buggers will come in and say 'here'
   and I'll say 'yep, okay' and they look at you cos you're
   writing the number down and they say 'oh so you need to
   take the number?' 'Yeah, because I will ring up
   membership with that number and they will confirm or
   otherwise that you are still financially compliant'

When queried as to what happened with those workers who did not own a union card, he explained,

   Well if they haven't got a card, two things. If it's a welder
   I then asterisk him on the list and when I go out asking
   people what they want to do for overtime, I walk past this
   person. Cos I'm a GMB shop steward running a rota for
   GMB members for overtime. Now he makes his own
   arrangements. Now I then go and see the foreman at about
   11 o'clock on a Monday morning and say 'right, what's
   the requirements?' I get an overtime request sheet which
   gives me numbers of welders for each day. I then write
   that up with the list I have. Now if he's not fast enough to
   go and see his foreman, or a foreman, he doesn't get any
   overtime. Not my fault, not my problem, that's his
   problem. If he has an accident he has a dispute with the
   foreman. If he has to follow disciplinary procedures, nowt
   to do with me, 'sling your hook sunshine, I don't represent
   you, you represent yourself' and when it comes to the
   grouse meeting, I will notify his foreman that he's not
   GMB and I'll expect him to be working on his job when
   we're sitting in the canteen having our meeting, he isn't
   entitled to one. He works on his job and I make sure the
   foreman has these bastards out there working. It's not
   subtle, it's not clever but it's very effective.

It also became apparent, that despite this evidence providing implications of the now illegal 'closed shop', management did not intervene in this activity as they would prefer to avoid conflictual tensions arising in the workplace. This was highlighted when a senior shop steward was queried as to union recruitment and membership figures,

   We've got 99% on the shop floor. In the previous contract,
   I had one guy, one welder on dayshift who wouldn't join.
   He didn't want to work overtime either. The chance of
   him getting back here are nil because they [management]
   realised that I had problems with this person because he
   wouldn't join the union. The company don't want
   problems of that nature. So he's shit in his own nest. The
   guy who makes the decisions to bring people in, the
   welding superintendent, he knows that certain people
   aren't compliant and he doesn't want any chew.

Union recruitment is the second way in which shop stewards maintained high levels of union membership. Evidence from interviews illustrated that the shop stewards were extremely active in recruitment despite ineffectual attempts by some management to reduce the time they use to recruit members,

   Tomorrow I've got 5 welders starting and they'll come in
   the canteen cos they're all ex, well it's not that long since
   they've been away, so they'll come in, they've all got their
   swipe cards ready to start. They'll swipe in, go into the
   canteen, have a cup of tea or whatever, get their overalls
   on, then they'll come out of the canteen, the foremen are
   there, hand their cards over etc. Now I've already seen
   them, told them I'd see them after the 10 o'clock break.
   So after the 10 o'clock break, I'll see the Head Superintendent
   and I say 'I'll see these lot after tea'. 'Do you
   need that much time?' 'I'll cut it as tight as I can John'
   you know you play the game he says 'Do you really need
   this time can you not go round ...' 'No John, I can't I
   need them all in one place, nice and quiet where I can
   talk to them where it's seen to do an induction'. I mean
   he's playing a little game, I'm playing a little game but
   I'm given 10 minutes tomorrow morning with new starters
   same as we did on Monday morning.

It also became clear that the shop stewards received a list of all new employees beginning employment. If they do not receive a list from the main office, I was informed that,

   If we don't get it [a list] it gets shoved in our letterbox by
   the security lads.

In this way, such channels of communication again provide evidence of strong workplace union organisation and a united activity in this yard. One final further piece of illustrative evidence to support this claim is in the organisation of a benevolent fired which was set up by the shop stewards.

   We also do an in-house benevolent fund which is our own,
   so we also get them (the workforce) involved that as well,
   that's 1.50 [pounds sterling] a week. Once you've been off sick for
   4 weeks, you get 200 [pounds sterling]. It's got nothing to do with
   the union, that's purely and simply the workforce. Nothing to do with
   the social or anything like that, it's between us and them, it's a
   private arrangement. And at the end of the year we look at
   what we've got in the pot and how many people we've got
   on the sick and how the workforce is either increasing or
   decreasing, we make a decision on that and might give,
   say we've got a few grand spare, to charities.

Again, this demonstrates how shop stewards at this workplace proactively shape workers' collective activity and organisation. All of the evidence above provides confirmation of a healthy workplace unionism with effective shop steward organisation, high levels of membership participation and evidence of union democracy. However, despite demonstrating these features, which were also found at Ship Repair Ltd, I would doubt the adequacy of a thesis of resilience at Shipbuilders.Co as the two case studies are very different. In this yard there is persistent contract renewal and the unionism in the yard therefore must be re-established again and again. This re-establishment clearly draws on past experience and indeed often involves the same persons, but it is important to note this process of rebuilding unionism as it brings a further dimension to the renewal/resilience debate. Some consideration of the conditions of this process of rebuilding will be examined in the following discussion.

Discussion and conclusion

This article has provided new empirical evidence to contribute to the union renewal/resilience debate. Together with offering data from a neglected industrial sector in the literature, it is also argued that this evidence pushes the resilience argument further by presenting a proactive, rather than reactive, form of workplace union resilience. In addition to this, the second case study provides a further development to the debate by introducing evidence of an on-going process of rebuilding a dynamic unionism. Given the vitality of this unionism and the way in which the continuity of activism is maintained, this could be considered union resilience. On the other hand, as the unionism of the yard needs to be rebuilt with each new contract, it could also be considered union renewal. Indeed, it is suggested that this case study evidence demonstrates a form of 'resilient renewal'. Some consideration of this constant process of rebuilding workplace unionism will be examined later in this section. The aim of the study was a focus on the effectiveness of shop steward organisation in the industry, levels of activity in membership participation and its significance for union democracy, all of which are important factors in the renewal/ resilience debate. The case studies illustrate how workplace and shop steward organisation has survived, and remains relatively powerful, in a sector of the economy where some may have expected to view a decline in union organisation. 'Old' traditional manufacturing sectors in Britain have indeed witnessed decline due to factors such as economic restructuring and heavy redundancies. However, illustrated in this paper is an 'old' traditional industry where there have undeniably been changes in terms of economic decline and managerial offensives leading to a temporary and itinerant workforce, although there remains incredibly strong trade union organisation. This would indicate some support for other studies undertaken on the issue of resilience (e.g. Beale, 1999; Darlington, 1994, 2000; Fitzgerald et. al, 1996). However, the two case studies are very different and the evidence produces some issues which would appear to have been neglected in the renewal/resilience literature to date.

The first case study clearly demonstrates support for a thesis of resilience rather than renewal. In terms of the first issue under consideration, the effectiveness of shop steward organisation in the industry, the overall findings suggest that shop steward organisation is durable and effective in terms of their role at the workplace. There is evidence to suggest that the shop stewards in Ship Repair Ltd are fully accountable to their membership in terms of information reported back to the workforce after negotiations with management. There is a full time convenor who the workers can contact when required and the stewards also hold regular meetings to inform, discuss and communicate with members. Although there is a discernible indication of 'sectionalism', there is no evidence of sectional stewards being excluded in the organisation. In addition to this, it was noted that the shop steward organisation bore indications of a hierarchical bureaucracy which has been cautioned as weakening the resistance of workplace organisation, however, there was no evidence of a distancing of the stewards from the members. The regular sectional meetings raised issues which were disseminated across the workforce in mass meetings which again indicate the effectiveness of shop steward organisation in terms of keeping members informed and reinforcing union democracy. Together with this, stewards in both case study workplaces met on a regular basis and were able to work independently without the constant reliance of local FROS. As noted in most of the literature in the union renewal debate, the effectiveness of the role of representatives in the workplace is critical to workplace unionism. Such competence was evident in both Ship Repair Ltd and Shipbuilders.Co where the stewards involved members in activities and decision making rather than acting on behalf of the workforce. This evidence also illustrates the significance of union democracy and the collective interest and participation of members essential to workplace unionism.

Levels of activity in membership participation and the significance of union democracy were the other issues considered in this article. The case studies both demonstrate high levels of participation of the membership at collective meetings. Together with this is the evidence to suggest that the workforce are not passive agents in the process. Indeed observations in both yards provided confirmation to illustrate the two way interaction between the representatives and their members with many of the workers articulating their grievances and attempting to influence the stewards on issues they perceived were a sense of injustice. Collective negotiation and decision-making such as this provides strong evidence of union democracy. However, despite both yards demonstrating similar traits suggesting an argument for resilience rather than renewal, the two case studies are very different. It is because of this difference that the adequacy of the resilience argument for the second case study must be in doubt and why the term 'resilient renewal' might be more appropriate. Some consideration of the conditions of this on-going process of rebuilding unionism ought to be examined in order to contribute to the literature.

Firstly, the case study illustrates how the continual 'new' workforce elects 'new' shop stewards who are generally the same individuals. These new stewards succeed in building up shop steward numbers in the yard each time they are reelected. Despite a more complex shop steward structure which involves representatives of sub-contractors from a nonrecognised union, they endeavour to work together, sharing and resolving grievances and issues raised by the separate workforces. Such effective leadership qualities can also be discerned in their positive negotiations with management, firstly in preventing a lock-out, and secondly in reestablishing the traditional grouse meeting which also demonstrates their commitment to democratic participation. This is also emphasised in the importance attached to close communication with membership when shop steward numbers are low. The evidence illustrates that they utilise many ways to ensure they remain close to their members including adaptation to modern forms of communication. The drive to maintain high levels of membership is also an important consideration in the process of rebuilding unionism. The shop stewards achieve this in different ways including the show of cards, lists of new employees to check off membership and persistence in attending worker induction programmes despite management's subtle disapproval.

All of these issues illustrate a constant rebuilding of a vibrant form of unionism which was earlier referred to as 'resilient renewal'. This term is arguably appropriate as the evidence presents a continual retaining and renewing of proactive workplace unionism. Such proactivity is suggested as a further contribution to the debate as highlighted in this paper. The two case studies point to the vitality of unionism in the TMCI and the way in which continuity of activism is maintained. It would appear that the conditions for this activism lie in a combination of accountable and responsive leadership, as well as an ongoing and practical commitment to forms of democratic participation, reflected in the formal and informal exchanges between stewards and their membership, and indeed the adaptation to modern forms of communication. This would appear to push the resilience argument further than most, in that it is not simply resilience in a reactive form, but is an ongoing form of proactive unionism that changes and adapts to maintain a well-established and well organised workplace unionism.

References

Ackers, P., Smith, C & Smith, P. (Eds) (1996) The New Workplace and Trade Unionism: Critical Perspectives on Work and Organisations. Routledge.

Beale, D. (1999) 'Workplace Union Renewal, Resilience and Redefining the Debate--the Case of Royal Mail'. A paper presented to Union Renewal? Workplace Industrial Relations in the Public Sector--a seminar organised by the Universities of Northumbria and Hertfordshire.

Clarke, J.F. (1966) 'Labour Relations in Engineering and Shipbuilding on the North East Coast in the Second Half of the 19th Century'. M.A. Thesis. University of Newcastle.

--(1977a) 'Engineering Workers on Tyneside' in McCord, N.

(Ed) (1977) Essays in Tyneside Labour History. Department of Humanities, Newcastle Upon Tyne Polytechnic.

--(1977b) 'Workers in the Tyneside Shipyards' in McCord, N. (Ed) (1977) Essays in Tyneside Labour History. Department of Humanities, Newcastle Upon Tyne Polytechnic.

Clegg, H.A., Fox, A. & Thompson, A.F. (1964) A History of British Trade Unions Since 1889 Volume 1, 1889-1910. Oxford University Press.

Clegg, H.A. (1985) A History of British Trade Unions Since 1889. Volume 11 1911-1933. Oxford University Press.

Commission on Industrial Relations. Report No, 22. 'Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing'. Cmnd. 4756. HMSO, 1971.

Darlington, R. (2000) 'Shop Stewards' Leadership, Left-Wing Activism and Collective Workplace Union Activity'. Paper presented to BUIRA Marxist Group Seminar, February 2000, Manchester Metropolitan University.

--(1997) 'Workplace union resilience in the Merseyside Fire Brigade'. Industrial Relations Journal 29:1, pp. 58-73.

--(1994) The Dynamics of Workplace Unionism: Shop Stewards" Organization in Three Merseyside Plants. Mansell.

--(1993) 'The challenge to workplace unionism in the Royal Mail'. Employee Relations, 15:5 PP. 3-25.

Dundon, T. (1997) 'Post-privatised shop steward organisation and union renewal at Girobank'. Industrial Relations Journal, 29:2, pp. 126-136.

Fairbrother, P. (1989) 'Workplace Unionism in the 1980s: A Process of Renewal?' Workers' Educational Association, Studies for Trade Unionists, Volume 15, Number 57.

--(1996) 'Workplace Trade Unionism in the State Sector' in Ackers, P., Smith, C & Smith, P. (Eds) (1996) The New Workplace and Trade Unionism: Critical Perspectives on Work and Organisations. Routledge.

--(2000) 'British Trade Unions Facing the Future' Capital & Class, 71, pp.47-78.

Fairbrother, P & Waddington, J. (1990) 'The politics of trade unionism: Evidence, policy and theory' Capital & Class, 41.

Fitzgerald, I., Rainnie, A. & Stirling, J. (1996) 'Coming to Terms with Quality: UNISON and the Restructuring of Local Government'. Capital & Class, 59, pp103-134.

Fosh, P (1993) 'Membership Participation in Workplace Unionism: The Possibility of Union Renewal'. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31:4, pp.577-592.

Gall, G. (1995) 'Return to sender: A commentary on Darlington's analysis of workplace unionism in the Royal Mail in Britain'. Employee Relations, 17, 2, pp.54-63.

--(1998) 'The Prospects for Workplace Trade Unionism: Evaluating Fairbrother's Union Renewal Thesis'. Capital & Class, 66.

Henry, E. (1996) 'The New New Unionism' in Beardwell, I. (1996) Contemporary Industrial Relations: A Critical Analysis. Oxford.

--(1998) 'The Relaunch of the Trades Union Congress' British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36:3, pp.339-360.

Jones, I (1993) Decline of Shipbuilding on Tyneside. Tyneside TEC.

North East Trade Union Studies Information Unit (1976) British Shipbuilding--a trade union initiative: A Report Commissioned By The Tyne Shipbuilding and General Branch of APEX. TUSIU.

Kelly, J. (1996) 'Union Militancy and Social Partnership' in Ackers, P., Smith, C & Smith, P. (1996) The New Workplace and Trade Unionism: Critical Perspectives on Work and Organisations. Routledge.

Lorenz, E.H. (1991) Economic Decline in Britain: The Shipbuilding Industry 1890-1970, OUP.

McGoldrick, J. (1983) 'Industrial Relations and the Division of Labour in the Shipbuilding Industry Since the War'. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 21, No. 2.

Metochi, M. (2002) 'The Influence of Leadership and Member Attitudes in Understanding the Nature of Union Participation'. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40:1, March, pp.87-111.

New Unionism Project (1998a) Research Bulletin 1 Trade Union Research Unit, Cardiff Business School.

New Unionism Project (1998b) Research Bulletin 3 Trade Union Research Unit, Cardiff Business School.

New Unionism Project (1999c) Research Bulletin 4 Trade Union Research Unit, Cardiff Business School.

Roberts, 1. (1993) Craft, Class and Control: The Sociology of a Shipbuilding Community. Edinburgh University Press.

Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations (1968) Report, Cmnd 3623, HMSO.

Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee 1965-1966, Report. Cmnd. 2937. HMSO, 1966.

Stirling, J. & Bridgford, J. (1985) 'British and French Shipbuilding: the Industrial Relations of Decline', Industrial Relations Journal, 16:4, 7-16.

TUC (1997) Partners for Progress: Next Steps for the New Unionism. London: Trades Union Congress.

Webb, S & B. (1920a) The History of Trade Unionism. 3rd Edition. A.M. Kelley Publishers.

Willman, P. & Cave, A. (1994) 'The Union of the Future: Super-Unions or Joint Ventures?' British Journal of Industrial Relations, 32:3, pp.395-412.

Jo McBride is lecturer in industrial relations in the Work and Employment Research Centre at Northumbria University.