"Capitalism has never been able to solve the evils and problems of its own creation. It is more than ever incapable of extricating the world from the intensified troubles of today. Re-organisation is inevitable sooner or later, and the longer it is postponed, the greater will be our difficulties."
G. Lathan
Chairman 1932 Labour Party Conference.
Having achieved victory over the TUC and then the miners, the Government did not rest on its laurels and immediately responded to demands from the Railway Companies' Association and other employers for changes in the law to weaken the rights of trade unionists. A Trade Disputes Bill was introduced to Parliament which received bitter opposition from the Labour Party and the trade union movement.
The Government used the declarations made by Sir John Simon and Justice Astbury during the General Strike (that it had been an illegal act) to further their ambition to make such strikes, and sympathetic strikes, illegal. The picketing laws were redefined to operate against strikers, whereas strike breakers had the protection of the law against disciplinary action taken by their union. Union funds, once again, became liable for civil damages, making obsolete the immunity that had been granted under the Act of 1906. Trade unionists who participated in sympathetic strikes were open to a heavy fine, or imprisonment for up to two years. Civil Service unions were banned from affiliating to the TUC and Labour Party, and instead of trade unionists having to "contract out" of their political donations, they now had to "contract in".
The RCA was opposed to the Bill and campaigned against it, both inside Parliament and amongst the membership. Ernest Townend told the House of Commons that it was a bad and vicious Bill, conceived in hatred and envy, and reeking with malice and uncharitableness.
1 Referring to Clause 5, which proposed to prohibit civil servants from affiliating to the Labour Party and TUC, he said, It transforms the whole of the Civil Service into a huge slave plantation, and throws us back to the days of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
2 The protests were dismissed and the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill was enacted in July 1927.
As Table 5 shows, the proportion of members paying the political levy since 1913 had been exceptionally high; the challenge for the EC now was to retain that same level of commitment. The percentage contributing to the Political Fund in 1926 was 98.2, and in the prevailing political climate a drop in support was feared. The campaign was supported at grass roots level by the Divisional Councils and by June 1928, those who had "contracted in", varied from 70.62 per cent in Northumberland and Durham, to 91.09 per cent in the Eastern Division;3 by the end of the year 83.5 per cent paid the political levy. Between 1927 and 1945 no fewer than 81 per cent voluntarily "contracted-in" to the Political Fund. This ranked amongst the finest in the trade union movement, and was, by far, the best of the transport unions.
| Year | Members | % paying levy |
|---|---|---|
| 1928 | 52,227 | 83.5 |
| 1930 | 59,473 | 83.2 |
| 1932 | 58,964 | 81.1 |
| 1934 | 58,677 | 81.5 |
| 1936 | 60,931 | 82.4 |
| 1937 | 62,365 | 83.0 |
| 1939 | 64,389 | 84.7 |
| 1941 | 78,387 | 86.6 |
| 1943 | 87,645 | 88.5 |
| 1945 | 89,409 | 89.8 |
Since the RCA had been politicised in 1910 there had always been those within the Association who had opposed its affiliation to the Labour Party and the close working relationship that had developed between the industrial and political wings of the movement. The fact that affiliation had brought benefits for the RCA was resented by some Liberal and Conservative members but its participation in the General Strike was too much for a small number, and a National Association of Stationmasters, Agents and Yard Masters was formed in opposition. It introduced the same rates of subscription as the RCA and sought to establish a feeling of good fellowship and by social intercourse and discussion increase the knowledge of members and enable them to become more valuable Officers of the Companies.
4 The acrimonious political differences that followed the momentous events of 1926, provided sufficient incentive for another small group to attempt a further breakaway. This was called the Railway Salaried Staff (Non-Political) Association and support for it was built up over several months by railway clerks based in Middlesbrough and Darlington. Its registered office was at Dunston-on-Tyne and Rule 11 of its constitution read: This Association shall not contribute to or become directly or indirectly affiliated to any political party or any organisation of a political character.
5
Unlike Arthur Chandler, who had led the first breakaway, the leaders of this right-wing Association had not achieved any prominence in the RCA. Even Walkden had recognised the outstanding qualities and charisma of Chandler, whom he considered to have been far more able6 than those who were now trying to split the union. The General Secretary of the Railway Salaried Staff Association was Frederick A. Chamberlain, the Treasurer was Arthur Wilcock, both based at Darlington, and the President was Benjamin Mennell from Newcastle on Tyne. In an attempt to undermine the RCA, the leaders of the breakaway accused the Association of being frightened to publish its 1926 balance sheet. This hardly gave them credibility, as it had already been supplied to every branch on 6th May 1927, and a full debate had taken place at the annual conference. The Railway Salaried Staff Association formally registered as a trade union on 17th December 1928; it opposed affiliation to the Labour Party, Trades Councils and the ITF and found few adherents. As a result, by 28th November the following year it was dissolved. This attempt to form a non-political union of railway clerks did nothing to diminish the political work of the RCA. If anything, it was strengthened. In 1929 the Manchester and District Political Advisory Council was formed, with much of its pioneering work being done by Richard Rowlands and Arthur Moss,7 Apart from co-ordinating the political work of local branches of the RCA and preparing for elections, political meetings and rallies were regularly held. It was a major step forward in developing the political work of the Association.
There were two General Elections held in the Irish Free State in 1927, one in June, the other in September. William Davin was re-elected on both occasions but in June, Eamonn O'Carroll, who contested Dublin North, and A.J. Cassidy, in Donegal were unsuccessful. Archie Cassidy,8 not an official RCA nominee, was, however, returned to the Dáil in September, being the first member of the Labour Party to represent the constituency. The election of Cassidy and Davin did not reflect the fortunes of the Labour Party nationally, and its representation in Dáil Éireann dropped from 22 to 13, including the loss of its leader, Tom Johnson.
Meanwhile, in England, when the Rt. Hon. J.H. Whitley MP, speaker of the House of Commons, resigned his seat at Halifax in 1928, it gave Alderman Arthur William Longbottom JP,9 the opportunity to commence a new career. Prior to 1928, Longbottom does not appear to have had any Parliamentary ambitions and had never stood for the Parliamentary Panel, but when his candidature was endorsed, the RCA assisted with his election expenses. During the election campaign Longbottom had the support of George Lansbury, Ramsay MacDonald, Margaret Bondfield and Ernest Townend. Longbottom's opponents attempted to damage his reputation by emphasising his role during the strike; this was a major mistake and even though Labour had not contested Halifax since 1910, on 13th July 1928 Longbottom emerged as the winner with a majority of 4,951 votes. The result was:
With the election of a Labour Government in 1929, Longbottom was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, a post he held until 1931 when he lost his seat in the General Election.
Demoralised by the events of May 1926 and the implementation of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act (1927), the General Council was determined that a General Strike would never be repeated. Almost before the ink had dried on the odious Trade Disputes Act they sought to improve their relationship with industry. The strategy was first voiced by the TUC Chairman, George Hicks, at the 1927 Congress and it was developed by the General Secretary, Walter Citrine. It met with a positive response from a number of leading industrialists, led by Sir Alfred Mond, the Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries, a former Liberal Cabinet Minister, and now a Tory. The General Council appointed a sub-committee under its chairman Ben Turner, leader of the wool textile workers, to meet Mond and his colleagues, and the much publicised meetings became known as the Mond-Turner talks.
The first meeting took place on 12th January 1928 and this was to set the agenda for the coming months. The topics included housing, health and unemployment insurance, rationalisation and amalgamation, education and industry, works councils, security and status of workers, investigation into the causes of disputes, financial participation by employees and the establishment of a standing committee.
Following the meeting a joint statement was issued saying that it was undesirable that workers should be dismissed or penalised on account of their membership of a union or legitimate trade union activities; that the victimisation of trade unionists following the General Strike was to be deprecated and appealed for the restoration of the pre-1926 position. Amongst the industrialists who desired to see such improvements in British industry were Lord Ashfield, and Sir Josiah Stamp, Chairman of the LMS Railway. The Westminster No.2 branch, whose members were employed on the Underground, welcomed this rapprochement and wrote to Lord Ashfield congratulating him on his appointment to the Mond-Turner Committee, but pointing out that there were still many cases of hardship caused by the 1926 strike and asking for the reinstatement of all Clause 4 cases.10 This had no effect and both Stamp and Ashfield continued to punish clause 4 employees for years after the General Strike had ended.
The trade union movement embraced Mondism, and both Alexander Walkden and Thomas Gill were strong supporters, but the Federation of British Industries and the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations remained aloof, declining to endorse its sentiments. The objective of Mondism was ostensibly to produce harmony between capital and labour and appraise the Government of their joint views, but opposition came from the left who considered that its real purpose was to disarm the trade union movement. The CP saw Mondism as class collaboration, and A.J. Cook (the only member of the General Council to oppose Mondism) attacked the talks at the 1928 TUC. Writing in The Jogger, (a newspaper produced by Communist clerks in the Railway Clearing House), the Editor said:
"Since May 1926 the General Council seeks peace at any price. They have accepted MONDISM which means trade union co-operation in pressing through 'Rationalisation' with its wage cuts, labour reduction and unemployment. The General Council has given up the fight. So they plan that those in the unions who want to prepare for struggle are to be expelled."11
Mondism was also attacked by Rowland Hill in a letter to The Railway Service Journal12 but his views failed to attract the support of the majority of railway clerks who remained ideologically in tune with Walkden, Gill and Mond-Turner. No positive results were achieved as a result of Mondism but it did influence the views of the General Council and the trade union movement for years to come.
By 1927 the railway companies were in an increasingly difficult financial situation, with revenue some £7 million less than expected. The steady growth of road transport and a depression in the coal, iron, cotton and textile industries had led to this poor result, and when the companies saw the financial statement for the first six months in 1928 an even worse situation was revealed. In the new spirit of Mondism they turned to the trade unions, the very people they had reviled just two years earlier, to accept wage cuts in order to improve profitability.
When the union leaders met the general managers on 18th July 1928, the companies said that in order to return to profitability the War Bonus should cease, and the National Agreement which provided for bonus additions on increases in the cost of living, should be terminated. The unions rejected this, as it would hit the lowest-paid the hardest. They were also aware that if they had given way, the Government would have been only too pleased to apply the same principle to those employed in the civil service, local councils and other industries which still received bonus payments. The general managers also requested that all enhanced payments for night work, overtime and Sunday work should cease, along with that of the guaranteed week. All the proposals were rejected. The companies then demanded that there should be a 5 per cent reduction in earnings, and, after protracted negotiations, Walkden proposed to Thomas and Bromley that a reduction of 2½ per cent be accepted. At first the NUR opposed the suggestion as they were firmly in favour of a reduction in earnings based on a sliding scale. Eventually, the more the NUR and ASLEF examined the proposal, the more attractive it became, as it left the National Agreements intact. Throughout all of these meetings the general managers continually stressed that their employees were partners in the railway industry and that the companies' ability to raise fresh and necessary capital at reasonable rates of interest was a matter of mutual concern.13 Mondism was now at work, but although the average wage of the lowest paid railway worker was 50 shillings (£2.50) per week, and that of the Clerical Grades was 80 shillings, (£4.00) a strike was never an option. Financially and morally weakened by the General Strike the majority of railway workers had little stomach for a further battle with the employers. Thomas Gill reflected the mood of most delegates when, in his Presidential address to the 1929 Annual Conference he said:
"There are times when a fight to a finish is the only possible course, but there are occasions too when such a fight is neither necessary or wise. When an army is at a tactical disadvantage the giving of ground is sometimes less costly than an attempt to force the issue, and a timely retreat may ultimately make for an offensive, in which far more is gained than is given up."14
For the first time in the history of industrial relations, trade unionists signed a contract to reduce the pay of their members and as a result, Sir Ralph Wedgwood, Sir Felix Pole and Sir Herbert Walker showered Bromley, Thomas and Walkden with praise for their statesman-like attitude.15 The agreement also included a cut in the salaries of the company directors and general managers, but it was those who earned the least that would fare the hardest in the coming years. The agreement was ratified by the RCA on 12th August 1928 at a special conference held at the Regent Theatre, London. Only 10 of the 458 delegates voted against, and no alternatives were put to the Executive's proposition. The unions acknowledged that the arrangement should continue until 13th May 1930, after which no further cuts would be demanded for a period of six months. Any expectations that the pay cut would be a "one-off" settlement would soon prove to be wrong.
These cuts saved the companies nearly £3 million on a total labour cost of £120 million and all three unions were keen to regain their loss. A special RCA conference was held on 8/9th November 1930 and this formulated a new programme which was submitted to the railway companies on the day after the six month truce had expired - 13th November. Confidently expecting to sign a new agreement that would bring benefits to their members, the railway unions soon found that their sacrifice had been in vain. The economic position of the railway companies had actually worsened throughout 1930, with their net revenue approximately £7 million down on the previous year. Walkden and the other railway trade union leaders were stunned, particularly when the general managers demanded further cuts designed to make savings of £11 million.
The proposals were to reduce the scale of salaried staff on £180- £350 p.a. by £20 p.a. with an immediate cut of £15. For the majority of clerks, those within the scale of £80 to £170, pay was reduced by £10 with an immediate cut of a further £10. Good Friday and Christmas Day, if falling within the standard week, were to be considered as ordinary days. Another infuriating proposal was that after the long, hard battle to achieve additional pay for Sunday work, this was to be withdrawn; night work was to be paid at the same rate as day work. Similar proposals were made for the other grades and apart from the sheer hardship that these cuts brought to thousands of railway workers, it was particularly galling that the cuts were not to apply to directors or the most senior managers. It did not take long for all three unions to reject the offer and it was passed to the National Wages Board for adjudication.
The Wages Board, composed of representatives from employers, trade unions, and the trading and travelling public, commenced its proceedings on 19th January 1931. It sat for a period of thirteen days under the chairmanship of Sir Harold Morris K.C., to hear the submissions of all parties, and then met in private on 23rd February to consider the evidence. The presentations, made by John Bromley, John Marchbank, and Alexander Walkden, were extremely detailed and they received considerable praise, but criticism came from the one source that consistently opposed any acceptance of pay cuts - those in the Minority Movement.
When Sir Harold Morris issued the Board's Report on 5th March, he ruled that salaried staff should lose 2½ per cent of their pay plus a further 2½ per cent if their salary exceeded £100 p.a. Similar reductions were made for those within the Conciliation Grades. The award came into operation on 26th March and lasted for one year. An addendum to the Report, signed by all the trade union representatives on the Wages Board, plus Arthur Pugh and Henry May, representing the trade and travelling public, said that the enquiry had reinforced their view that further co-ordination and a national organisation of all forms of transport under public ownership was required to resolve the problems of the transport industry.16
The political and economic climate was now ripe to attack the living standards of all working people, and in 1928 the London Underground (whose companies had combined in 1915) introduced a 2½ per cent pay cut. Profits held up well and although 1930 had actually been a record year, towards the end of 1931 there was a drop in revenue and the Underground dismissed 377 employees. The company also made overtures to the unions about further pay cuts but these were resisted. After receipts dropped by £175,000 in the first sixteen weeks of 1932 more dismissals were announced and, following discussions with Lord Ashfield, the unions agreed to accept a reduction of 2½ per cent on all earnings up to £2.00 per week, 5 per cent above £2.00 and 7½ per cent for those paid more than £750 p.a.
When the unions met the railway managers on 28th September 1932, they faced a demand for a 10 per cent cut in wages, with the proviso that no employee would receive less than 38 shillings (£1.90) per week. This, too, was taken to the National Wages Board which commenced its hearing on 29th November. The RCA considered that the proposed cut was wholly unreasonable, especially as many employees were still suffering from the former reduction in pay. The Board sat until 20th December, but when it began to compile its recommendations the members were totally divided. Such was the division of opinion that five reports were prepared. After failing to unite the various factions the chairman produced his own report which recommended a cut of 4 1/6th per cent and an additional reduction of the same percentage from those who earned more than 50 shillings (£2.50) per week. This was accepted by the employers, but was rejected by the railway unions at a meeting on 24th January 1933. The employers then gave twelve months notice of their intention to terminate the Machinery of Negotiation that had been established in 1921.
After long and difficult discussions with the railway management an agreement was reached in August 1934 to restore the wage cuts in stages. A similar arrangement was reached with the London Underground, becoming effective from 1st June 1935. Finally, after interminable bargaining, a new Machinery of Negotiation was introduced on 1st March 1935 with Local Departmental Committees (LDC) and Sectional Councils for each railway company. The Central Wages Board was dissolved and negotiations on pay and conditions took place within the Railway Staff Conference. Any failure to agree was passed initially to the Railway Staff National Council and if this body failed to resolve the matter, it was sent to the Railway Staff National Tribunal (RSNT). The chairman of the Tribunal was appointed by the Minister of Labour, one member was appointed by the trade unions and the other by the employers. In addition, three representatives from the railway companies and three from the trade unions acted as assessors; they were not party to signing any decision of the Tribunal, and its decisions were not binding.
As traffic receipts improved, the trade unions were able to restore some of the earlier wage cuts, but on 12th June 1936, when they expected to regain the final 2½ per cent, the companies offered to restore only half the amount. The unions took their case to the RSNT; its Chairman, Sir James Arthur Salter, supported the companies' case, and it was not until 20th July 1937 that earnings were fully restored.
The average dividend paid to shareholders varied from 4.17 per cent in 1913 to 4.3 per cent in 1920. Two years later it reached a post-war peak of 4.62 per cent but fell to 3.23 per cent in 1931. The dividends gradually increased, and by 1937 they reached 3.43 per cent. Only then, after many years of hardship, were pay cuts, as an instrument of management policy, brought to an end.
| Year | Net Revenue £ | Total Staff |
|---|---|---|
| 1928 | 41,000,115 | 677,148 |
| 1929 | 44,983,143 | 642,137 |
| 1930 | 37,716,114 | 656,530 |
| 1931 | 33,370,536 | 615,592 |
| 1932 | 26,425,193 | 597,971 |
| 1933 | 28,804,162 | 566,300 |
| 1934 | 31,480,716 | 575,048 |
| 1935 | 32,921,754 | 580,766 |
| 1936 | 35,730,561 | 585,611 |
| 1937 | 37,591,328 | 599,652 |
When the Great Southern Railway had been formed it was prevented by law from operating its own buses, but in 1927, when Dáil Éireann passed the Railways (Road Motor Services) Act, its directors took advantage of the new situation. In 1931, the Great Southern Railway took a controlling interest in one of the largest of the road haulage firms - John Wallis & Sons. The Great Northern Railway and the Londonderry & Lough Swilly Railway also set up a road goods service and before long the mad struggle for customers between the principle Irish railway companies and their own buses, combined with an economic crisis, produced demands for cuts in the pay of railway workers.
From 1925 onwards the companies made almost annual attacks on salary scales. They succeeded in getting favourable awards against the Conciliation Grades from the Irish Railway Wages Board, but all attacks on RCA conditions were rebuffed until 1931. On this occasion the Board recommended that salaries for clerical and supervisory staff be reduced by 2½ per cent on the first £100 of their pay, with 3 3/4 per cent on all above that amount. Wages for Conciliation staff were reduced by 4 3/8 per cent. This was accepted by the trade unions and it became operative from 9th May 1931, lasting for a period of twelve months, with three months notice to terminate the agreement. This failed to resolve the deep economic problems faced by the railway companies and a savage cut of 15 per cent was demanded. When the Wages Board discussed the matter it recommended a 10 per cent decrease in pay from January 1933. Even those who earned less than £2.00 per week, and had been exempt from the previous wage cut, had their pay reduced. Such was the gravity of the railway's finances that Charles Cramp actually suggested at a meeting of union representatives, that the unions should consider paying the 10 per cent themselves as far as the Northern Ireland railways were concerned;17 this was rejected. The Wages Board's decision was opposed by the NUR, and a strike was only prevented in the Free State when its Government granted a subsidy to last until 30th April 1933. The Ulster Government was able to dissuade the Northern Railway Companies from introducing wage cuts until 23rd January, but following a breakdown of negotiations, a strike of ASLEF and NUR members commenced at midnight on 30th January.
George Lathan, who was in Ireland throughout this period, reported back to the EC who agreed that they should go for a settlement and attempt to persuade the NUR to do likewise. The Belfast branch, with more than 50 per cent of Northern Ireland's membership, tended to determine local RCA policies. Before the subsidy was granted by the Free State, the branch supported the strike decision but in the new situation many members felt that the strike was a dangerous diversion from a more serious strike to come, i.e. when the subsidy provided by the Free State ended on 30th April. The President of the Association, F.B. Simpson, along with J.T. O'Farrell and George Lathan, attended a meeting of the Belfast branch on the day the strike commenced. The members voted not to participate, as they thought it unwise to dissipate our resources at this stage, and hereby reluctantly decide to refrain from a withdrawal of labour now, reserving our energies for the fight which we believe inevitable.
18
Throughout the dispute, RCA members refused to do the work of those on strike; for this they were punished, and within two days a station master and a clerk were dismissed for refusing to work as signalmen. The pressure was relentless, and when salaried staff on the Great Northern Railway were given a month's notice on 7th February, they were strongly advised to do the work of those on strike. If they refused, they were told that their chances of being taken on again were very slim indeed. Nineteen clerks were dismissed for refusing to do additional duties on 15th February, and on the same day all salaried staff employed by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway were given a fortnight's notice and sent home. O'Farrell protested against this continuous intimidation and, with rare exceptions, the companies failed to break the resolve of the membership.
An attempt to negotiate a settlement occurred in the sixth week of the strike but this broke down when the companies continued to demand the full implementation of the 10 per cent cut. On 5th April, following efforts by the Free State's Minister for Industry and Commerce, a conference was held to resolve the dispute. Bitterness at the RCA's reluctance to take part in the strike led to the NUR and ASLEF representatives refusing to negotiate in the same room as the RCA, and a separate meeting was held. An agreement was reached to reinstate the strikers on 7th April and after 67 days, the longest strike in railway history came to an end. The terms of the settlement, as far as pay was concerned, applied to the whole of Irish railways, and were harsh. From the 1st May 1933, for a period of twelve months, 10 per cent was deducted from the pay of those in the Salaried Grades, to be followed by a reduction of 7½ per cent the following year. Those in the Conciliation Grades had a 7½ per cent deduction in their wages, plus the loss of pay for their 1933 annual holiday. This enraged those employed on the Great Southern Railway, and thousands went on unofficial strike, only returning to work on 12th April after the company threatened to close the railway system. The agreement also established that staff would be re-engaged on the basis of seniority, but this failed to be the case. All grades on the Great Northern Railway were victimised, particularly those in the most senior positions who had refused to do the duties of those on strike. By September 18 clerks were still awaiting reinstatement and 600 members of the Conciliation Grades had been dismissed.
The strike proved to be a costly tragedy for all concerned. The total amount at issue for the three months between 1st February and 30th April was a mere £9,400. The unions had already offered a compromise which would have reduced this figure to £5,000 but the companies refused to find any further common ground. As soon as the strike commenced, the Irish Free State withdrew its own subsidy from the cross-border companies, thereby ensuring that the loss to the Northern Railways was far greater than the original amount at issue. Further pay cuts were imposed by the Wages Board and in 1939, the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway introduced a pay cut of 15 per cent and the Belfast and County Down Railway, one of 10 per cent. Some of these reductions in pay lasted until 1941.
The conciliatory attitude of the TUC towards some of the most powerful industrialists in the country in 1928 was not extended to the CP and those militant trade unionists who were active within the National Minority Movement. In this period of anti-communism, trade unions reviewed their affiliations to labour movement organisations, and in many instances banned Communists from representing their union, labelling them as "disruptive". The RCA was not immune from this political bias. This antagonism towards the CP did not stem only from its National Officers and the EC, the overwhelming majority of members were opposed to revolutionary politics and militant trade unionism. As early as 1923 the Dundee No.1 branch wrote directly to the Labour Party urging that the CP be refused affiliation and that a public statement be issued indicating that the Labour Party had no connections with, or sympathy for, the CP. This, the branch secretary declared, would go a long way towards the conversion of large numbers of citizens, who while holding Labour views, remain aloof on account of their disgust at the communists and their impossible policies.
19
As the Labour Party and TUC adjusted their policies to accommodate Mondism and attract middle class opinion, the CP adopted sectarian policies which lasted until 1931. Their strategy, which visualised a sharpening of class conflict, had been agreed by the Communist International. It saw social democratic parties, including the Labour Party, reacting in the same manner as capitalist parties. Even the natural allies of the CP were treated as enemies. This did nothing to ease the political differences that already existed within the RCA and an early casualty of this scenario was the Labour Research Department (LRD). The LRD, originally called the Fabian Research Department, had been formed by Sidney and Beatrice Webb in 1912 as part of the Fabian Society. In 1917 it broke away, changed its name and for a period was semi-officially connected to the Labour Party. The LRD provides an information and research service to the labour movement and amongst its affiliates are Trades Councils, Co-operative Societies and trade unions and many of their branches and councils. The RCA first affiliated to the LRD in 1919, and by 1920, the South-East Divisional Council and 16 branches had also affiliated. For several years Thomas Burden attended its meetings and took an active interest in its affairs; he was nominated by the RCA for election to the LRD's Executive but was unsuccessful in gaining one of the 14 seats on offer coming 19th in 1924, and 22nd the following year.
Although members of the CP held key positions of responsibility in the LRD, and its Executive was dominated by those on the left, including A.J. Cook, A.B. Swales, and G.D.H. Cole, this did not seem to have troubled the RCA until after the General Strike. In July 1926, Thomas Gill first raised the possibility of ending its affiliation and this was supported by Burden who had repeatedly expressed his concern that Communists were prominent in the Department. Eighteen of the Association's branches had affiliated to the RCA, along with the South Lancashire, North-West London and East Midlands Councils. In November, when the Lancaster branch sought to increase sales of the LRD's magazine, Walkden told the EC that views had been expressed from certain quarters opposing the Association's affiliation to the LRD as there was a communist influence in the Department's activities.20 A sub-committee was formed to decide a course of action but it was not until February 1928 that the EC decided to end its official connection, whilst at the same time continuing to purchase the monthly circular.21 Sixteen branches, and the East Midlands, North-West London and South Lancashire Divisional Councils were then told to cease their affiliation. The majority complied, but the Worcester and Railway Clearing House No.1 branches, and the East Midlands Divisional Council defied the decision. The EC made known its intention to the LRD who sought permission to explain its position, but this was refused. This stance was deprecated by some branches and George Lathan suggested that the Executive's attitude would be strengthened if the Association ceased to purchase the LRD's monthly magazine and instead supplied branches with copies of the official bulletin prepared by the Labour Party and TUC.22 At the 1929 Annual Conference an attempt was made by the Middlesbrough No.1 branch to renew affiliation to the LRD but Walter Muter said its circular was condemned, not only because it reeked of Communist influences, but because it was not suitable for RCA branches.
23 Affiliation was not raised again until 1939 but after Frederick Dalley criticised the LRD for a number of errors in its publication Justice for Railwaymen, "Previous Question" was approved and the debate ceased forthwith.
After the LRD held a conference in September 1941 on "What's Holding Up Production?" the General Council of the TUC accused it of interfering with the functions of trade unions. The TUC then proscribed the LRD and Sir Walter Citrine suggested to the Labour Party that it should do likewise. Many of the LRD's staff were Communists, but it was financed and controlled by its 592 affiliated bodies of which only 11 were Communist organisations. The TUC was obliged to rescind its ban on the LRD at the 1943 TUC but it remained on the Labour Party's proscribed list until 1971.
The RCA reaffiliated to the LRD in 1945 but this was generally believed to have had more to do with the fact that the LRD's Chairman, George Elvin,24 was the son-in-law of the RCA's former President, F.C. Watkins, than for any other reason. The Association maintained its relationship with the LRD until April 1950, when the EC was advised by its National Officers that although the LRD was no longer proscribed, it was not an organisation with which the TUC wished to have any association. The TUC suggested that its own Research Department could provide a better service than the LRD, whose activities were largely devoted to propaganda.
25 The advice did not go unchallenged and opposition was voiced within the EC by Geoffrey Collings26 who had been active in the LRD since 1946. No mention of the LRD can pass without mentioning Frederick Tonge,27 who played a leading role in its affairs and those of the RCA. When he left the railway Tonge sought new outlets for his energy and turned to the LRD. His activities culminated in his election as its treasurer in October 1953 and he continued to be re-elected, unopposed, every year, for the next 27 years. After the Labour Party removed the LRD from its proscribed list a number of branches and Divisional Councils encouraged affiliation and in 1989 the TSSA finally acceded.
When the General Council called off the General Strike, many RCA members became disillusioned, and considerable hostility was shown by those on the left to the General Secretary, Thomas Gill and the EC. The most vehement expressions of this came from members of the CP, its allies within the Railway Minority Movement, and its successor, The Railwaymen's Vigilance Movement.28
The National Minority Movement, which commenced its activities during the latter part of 1923, primarily in the coal mining areas, quickly established itself in a number of industries, including transport. Following an initiative by the CP these groups met on 23rd-24th August 1924, when 270 delegates representing Trades Councils, unemployed committees and approximately 200,000 trade unionists united into a national organisation. This new militant body was seen by the TUC, the Labour Party and several trade unions as a disruptive influence, and in 1925, after the TUC General Council had ruled that Trades Councils should not affiliate to the Minority Movement, Walkden told RCA branches to comply. Some responded that their Trades Council had already affiliated to the Minority Movement, and asked if they should withdraw. Walkden considered that this would be counter-productive, and suggested that they should remain affiliated but attempt to change its policy. When the General Council asked for ratification of its decision at the 1926 TUC, the General Secretary of the Tailors and Garment Workers Union suggested that if Trades Councils were permitted to affiliate to the Minority Movement the minority might in a short time become the majority29 whereupon, the RCA's delegation, along with the majority of delegates, upheld the General Council's policy.
By 1928 a number of unions, but not yet the RCA, had already taken action against Communists and members of the Minority Movement, and had excluded them from office. At the TUC Thomas Gill proposed:
"That this Congress instructs the General Council to institute an enquiry into the proceedings and methods of disruptive elements within the Trade Union Movement (whether such elements manifest themselves amongst the unions or within the General Council itself), and to submit a report, with recommendations, to the affiliated organisations."30
Gill, in his final remarks, appealed for the support of Congress by saying, There is this enemy within our midst - and I believe the greatest enemy is within ourselves at the present moment.
The enquiry was agreed to and delegates went on to approve the General Council's approach to the Mond-Turner talks, of which the CP and the Minority Movement, (the enemy within), remained the most implacable opponents.
Discontent at the Association's decision not to resist pay cuts led to its most militant members identifying themselves with the Minority Movement. They were few in number, but those who participated in its work also played a significant role in the RCA. By 1928, railway clerks had established six small groups, but only one based at the Railway Clearing House was of consequence, with Communists taking a leading part in its activities. In January 1929, all the railway groups were invited to a conference to launch the National Railway Minority Group; Rowland Hill was chairman at one of its sessions, and Stewart Purkis,31 a member of the Railway Clearing House No.1 branch gave an address on Rationalisation
.
The names of Hill and Purkis were printed on a conference leaflet which also indicated that they were members of the RCA. When this became known they were told by Walkden that they had no right to give the impression that they were official speakers from the union. Purkis admitted that RCA, London
, had appeared after his name, but said this was not unusual as he, and indeed many others, had for years adopted the same procedure when writing to working class newspapers or speaking at public meetings; moreover, this procedure had never been challenged. Purkis totally refuted the suggestion that he wished to create the wrong impression, and as the Association's opposition to the Minority Movement was well known, he argued that any such attempt would have been ridiculous. He then assured the EC that he would make it quite clear to the conference he was voicing his own opinions, that he did not represent the official opinion of the RCA and that he did not have the blessing of the Association.32
Hill, who adopted an intransigent position, admitted that the conference agenda had designated him as chairman but that fact no more commits the RCA to the policy of the Minority Movement than did your (Walkden's) own officiating at Canterbury Cathedral two years ago commit me to the Christian superstitions.
33 Hill denied that the EC had the right to decide how anyone should describe themselves and insisted that he would continue to use the initials or title of the RCA in connection with any conferences called under the auspices of the National Minority Movement.34 In view of this, the EC passed the matter to its solicitors. The correspondence between the warring parties continued, with Hill saying that he had never claimed to be an official representative of the RCA, and indeed, he never would. When Walkden questioned Hill's loyalty to the RCA, he responded, The test of loyalty is to stand by one's own fellow members in time of stress and trial. But I have yet to learn that the 15,000 or more members of the RCA who lamentably failed to be loyal in May 1926, have had their attentions drawn to Rule 16A.
35 Hill never gave Walkden the formal assurance asked for, and provocatively in September 1929, he wrote an article in The Worker, with (RCA) after his name. Despite the introduction of a new rule at the 1929 Annual Conference that no member could use the name of the Association without its express permission, the EC decided that no action was called for.
Hill escaped expulsion, Purkis did not. Purkis, an activist in the Minority Movement and the CP, was a frequent and popular speaker at outdoor meetings. He was involved in developing The Jogger which was launched in November 1927 and it was his association with the paper that eventually led to his expulsion. The Jogger, which opposed pay cuts, frequently criticised the EC, with Walkden receiving adverse publicity in its columns. As we have seen, Walkden had refused a pay award after the strike, but in January 1928 he accepted an increase which raised his salary from £875 to £1,000 p.a. The maximum pay for stationmasters and agents did not exceed £400 p.a. and although Walkden's award had the support of the majority, some were incensed. Their reasons were also political as they considered that such a disparity in salary tended to divorce officials from the membership - a point of view which neatly suited their dislike of Walkden's politics.36
The Jogger was judged to be detrimental to the interests of the Association, and when Purkis was seen selling it at an RCA Conference the EC decided to take action. Walkden spoke to Frederick Watkins, the Executive member for North London and Chairman of the Clearing House branch, and asked him if the branch would be willing to expel Purkis. Watkins, aware that Purkis had strong support, was reluctant to do this and suggested that head office should deal with the matter. Purkis was interviewed by the EC on 3rd March 1929, and in a written statement criticised both Walkden and Gill for their role during the General Strike. Gill, in particular, was accused of letting down a number of young temporary workers who had participated in the strike but who still remained unemployed, despite Gill's assurance that their jobs would be safeguarded. Purkis made no secret of his support for the Minority Movement, and, after he refused to discontinue his association with The Jogger, he was expelled on 7th March 1929. His supporters reacted sharply, and suggested withholding their subscriptions. This was rejected by Purkis, who contended that it would not only weaken the RCA, but play into the hands of the EC. The Executive endeavoured to get the Railway Clearing House branch to endorse its decision, and a special meeting was called. Purkis was not allowed to state his case, but Walkden, Gill, Townend, Lathan and London EC members turned up to justify their decision. Undeterred by this impressive turn out, the members were not intimidated, and by 92 votes to 78 refused to endorse Purkis's expulsion. Two months later, at the annual conference, Purkis appealed against his expulsion, but found that his support did not extend very far beyond that of the activists within the Minority Movement. He lost by 39,275 votes to 3,750. Delegates then proceeded to debate the RCA's report on the Minority Movement which concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that more than a small number of RCA members were involved. Conference took the view that, whilst any members, including those who were members of the Minority Movement, could express their opinions within the Association, when they went outside and endeavoured to change any decisions the Association had agreed, then it was another matter, and must be dealt with.
As soon as the annual conference had completed its business, Walkden issued a circular advising branches not to elect known members of the Minority Movement to any office within their branch, or as delegates in any representative capacity on behalf of the Association. This was challenged by the Doncaster No.1 branch (which supported the Minority Movement) who passed a resolution stating: That this branch having in the past selected its officers and representatives according to their known ability and trade union merit, has found this method satisfactory, and desiring to place on record that it has no intention of varying such to meet unreasonable wishes of the EC.
This met with a cool response from the EC who pointed out that the circular was in harmony with the 1929 Annual Conference decision.37
When the Clearing House branch met after conference, a further discussion took place on Purkis's expulsion and it voted to support the conference decision by 28 votes to 18. A few months later, in September 1929, Purkis applied for readmission to the RCA and this was granted, subject to his ending his connection with The Jogger. Purkis found this unacceptable and he did not return to the Association until 1932. He continued to proclaim left-wing politics and when elected to the EC in 1936, he was admired for the sincerity he has always shown in his efforts to improve working class conditions.
38 Purkis remained on the Executive until 1939, but his branch was unable to persuade him to stand for a further term.
The expulsion of Purkis was followed by that of George W. Chandler,39 a member of the Manchester No.6 branch, who had first represented the Association at the 1926 TUC. A member of the CP and the Minority Movement, Chandler visited Leningrad as part of a delegation from the Manchester and Salford Trades Council, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Russian Revolution in November 1927. He sent two letters to The Railway Service Journal from Russia but his second letter, containing details of Russian railway workers' conditions of service was not published, as its contents were considered not to have any special value.40 One non-communist who had watched with regret the R.S.J., slowly but surely getting away from the things that matter in the Trade Union World
, said an article by Mr. Chandler on Russia would compare most favourably with some of the articles in our Journal.
41
The Editor of The Railway Service Journal was Frederick Dalley, who had taken over from William Stott in 1924. Dalley certainly did have a different style from that of his predecessor and often wrote articles on music and drama under his pen name of John Chapman. The left, including its most capable exponent Rowland Hill, who wrote several articles extolling left-wing politics and reviewed a number of books for the magazine were never excluded. The Journal's letter columns were always of a lively character and although Dalley's decision not to print Chandler's second letter was almost certainly political, such occasions were rare, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was a matter of consistent policy.
Chandler was a vigorous opponent of the EC but it was an article he wrote in the Sunday Worker on 15th September 1929 that led to his expulsion. This arose after 500,000 employees in the cotton industry had refused to accept a 12½ per cent cut in their wages; a lockout being imposed on 29th July 1929. A conference of the Operative Cotton Spinners refused to give their EC any powers to discuss a wage cut and on 15th August the Ministry of Labour initiated a committee of arbitration, with both unions and employers agreeing to abide by the award. Its constitution and terms, would, however, give rise to some controversy.
The chairman was Sir Rigby Swift K.C. a former Conservative MP. The employers' representatives were Sir Arthur Balfour, a Sheffield steel manufacturer, and Archibald Ross, a managing director. The trade union nominees were C.T. Cramp and A.G. Walkden. When they produced their unanimous report, it recommended that the employers' claim for a reduction in wages be reduced from 12½ to 6 1/4 per cent. The cotton trade union leaders reluctantly accepted the decision, but there was dissatisfaction at district and branch level. The following month the TUC met for its annual conference in Belfast, and a delegate from ASLEF launched an attack on Walkden. He suggested, that as Walkden was a member of the General Council, his agreement to the Cotton Award had contradicted the General Council's own Report to the 1928 Congress which stated:
"The General Council are satisfied that conditions in the depressed trades, unsatisfactory as they are, especially in the mining, iron and steel, shipbuilding and cotton industries, are not such as can be improved by proposals to reduce workers' wages. Against proposals of this character the Trade Union Movement must of necessity offer the sternest resistance."42
The General Secretary of the Amalgamated Weavers' Association, Andrew Naesmith, disassociated his union from the criticism, and Walkden told the delegates that both he and Cramp had fought hard to defend the interests of the cotton workers but the committee had been so constituted that if any one of the four persons dissented from the majority's opinion, the majority could give an award, or, if all four dissented, the chairman himself could give an award that would be binding on all concerned.43 Charles Cramp made a similar speech to that of Walkden and the challenge was defeated. This did not satisfy the militants, and George Chandler's article in the Sunday Worker criticised Walkden for agreeing to the cotton workers' pay reduction, linking it to the cuts agreed for railway workers. Chandler wrote:
"Such a man will never assist the railway worker in the fight for the return of the stolen 2½ per cent. On the contrary, he and his colleagues, Thomas, Cramp and Bromley will do everything possible to sabotage their efforts and to assist the Railway Companies in their efforts to rationalise at the expense of the railway workers. Against this unholy alliance of trade union bureaucrats and employers, the railway workers must organise."44
The EC demanded that Chandler withdraw his charge against Walkden but he declined, suggesting that Walkden should use the Sunday Worker to refute the statement and justify his policy. An attempt was made to expel Chandler immediately, but this was defeated and he was given a deadline of 11th January 1930 to undertake not to make further attacks of the same nature. Rather than retract, he responded with a petition, signed by 160 members in 8 branches, protesting against the Executive's decision to curb what they considered to be fair criticism. In their opinion, Chandler had not attacked a personality
, but a policy
45; they all opposed his expulsion, but expelled he was.
His appeal was heard at the 1930 Annual Conference, and there is no doubt that if he had adopted a softer approach his membership would have been restored. Chandler received support from Rowland Hill, H.L. Crank and B. Harper, a member of his own branch. Two future Presidents of the RCA, Percy Morris46 and James Haworth, both disagreed with the appeal, but suggested that the EC had panicked and should simply have ignored Chandler. Haworth undoubtedly made the most damaging speech against the Executive and his intervention could have been conclusive if Chandler had not ignored a final appeal. This came from John Harris asking Chandler to give conference the assurances that had been requested by the EC. This was not forthcoming; Chandler was unequivocal and declared his intention to be loyal to his own class.47 His appeal was turned down by 39,450 votes to 7,375. Delegates also debated a motion placed on the agenda by the Doncaster No.1 branch, which regretted that the General Secretary had concurred in the cotton arbitration award and H.L.Crank said that Walkden's sole concern had been to get the cotton workers back to work in order to provide a tranquil period for the Labour Government.48 Walkden strongly denied Crank's charge and an amendment, which carefully avoided any criticism of the award, but, at the same time, did not alienate the Cotton Operatives, was carried. It was a masterpiece of neutrality.
George Chandler continued to work in the Minority Movement and the Railway Vigilance Committee and spoke regularly at open air meetings, protesting against the wage cuts of the 20s and 30s. He was readmitted to the RCA, along with Purkis, in 1932, and six years later he received a Gold Medallion for his organising work. Chandler was one of the few members to receive a second Gold Medallion for his outstanding services to the RCA.
The TUC's Enquiry into Disruption, which had been initiated by the RCA, was presented to the 1929 Congress. It contained 14 pages of detailed criticism of the CP, the Minority Movement, the LRD, National Unemployed Workers' Committee and the League Against Imperialism. It also mentioned, in 19 lines, the disruptive activities of company unions and non-political unionism. The report concluded:
"There appears to be no doubt whatever but that Communist and Minority Movement activity does militate against not only the retention of members, but especially the enrolling of new members."
No recommendations were made for specific action, but it was suggested that all affiliated unions would be fully equal to the task of dealing with any disruptive activity in their own way.49 This they did, and one month after the Congress had accepted its Enquiry into Disruption
, the EC agreed, with two in opposition, that members of the Minority Movement should be prohibited from election to office, or from acting in any responsible capacity on behalf of the Association. This was followed by the removal of Arnold Wilson, a member of the Bradford No.1 branch, from his position as Organising Secretary. During the General Strike he had been chairman of the branch and an active participant on the Joint Strike Committee but angered by its outcome had moved to the political left. Wilson had been active in trying to win support for the reinstatement of Purkis and was Secretary of the Railway Clerks' Minority Movement. He was not a member of the CP but recognised in them some of the best workers in our organisations
and was proud to co-operate with them.
50 His crime was his refusal to choose between his position (as branch organiser) and his activities in the Minority Movement.51 When he appealed against the decision at a special conference in November 1929, Wilson argued that he had the right to work in the Minority Movement, and still remain as the organiser of his branch as he was a loyal and hard working member of the RCA. The delegates thought otherwise and by 396 votes to 27 his appeal was lost. Wilson continued in membership of the RCA and although he eventually resigned his position in the Minority Movement, he remained an active supporter. He was a tower of strength within his branch, but permission for him to be reinstated as its organiser did not come until July 1936, when an appeal from branch members was successful.52
In 1930, the Labour Party issued its first proscribed list which included the National Unemployed Workers' Committee and the National Minority Movement. All members of proscribed organisations were declared to be ineligible for individual membership of the Labour Party and local branches were told not to affiliate to such organisations. Labour Party members who were already active in proscribed bodies were told to cease their connections as a condition of their Labour Party membership. Further bans continued, and in 1934 the TUC issued its own "Black Circular" forbidding Trades Councils from accepting Communists and Fascists as delegates. Walkden was directed by the EC to bring the circular to the attention of branches and with the exception of the Reading branch, this was adhered to. In June 1935, Reading's noncompliance was brought to the attention of Walkden who then instructed the branch to withdraw a member of the CP from its delegation. This was complied with and there the matter ended.
[1]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 5th May Vol.205 Col.1786.
[2]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 5th May Vol.205 Col.1785.
[3]. The Railway Service Journal June 1928.
[4]. RCA EC Minutes 16th May 1926.
[5]. Public Records Office, Kew. FS.I 1-314.
[6]. RCA Circular P.29727 29th July 1927.
[7]. Richard Rowlands and Arthur Moss were consecutive Presidents of Manchester and Salford Trades Council 1929-1934.
[8]. A. J. Cassidy Elected to Dáil Éireann 1927-1932. Appointed Junior Labour Whip. When Cassidy lost his seat in 1932 he joined Fianna Fáil but did not return to the Dáil.
[9]. A. W. Longbottom (Halifax). Joined RCA 1901. Branch chairman 1921-1928. Elected to Halifax Town Council 1912, first Labour Mayor 1922, then Alderman. Penalised by LMS for his prominent role in the General Strike after he led thousands of strikers through town. Following RCA pressure he was eventually restored to his former post in January 1928. MP 1928-1931.
[10]. The Railway Service Journal December 1928.
[11]. The Jogger March 1929.
[12]. The Railway Service Journal April 1929.
[13]. The Railway Service Journal June 1930.
[14]. The Railway Service Journal June 1929.
[15]. The Times 28th July 1928.
[16]. The Railway Service Journal April 1931.
[17]. RCA EC Minutes 15th January 1933.
[18]. The Railway Service Journal March 1933.
[19]. RCA EC Minutes 5th/6th May 1923.
[20]. RCA EC Minutes 8th November 1926.
[21]. RCA EC Minutes 8th February 1928.
[22]. RCA EC Minutes 30th May 1928.
[23]. The Railway Service Journal June 1929.
[24]. G. Elvin, General Secretary, Association of Cine Technicians, Chairman LRD 1945-1950.
[25]. RCA EC Minutes 8th October 1949.
[26]. G. Collings (London Transport P&T). EC 1945-1951. SOC. Chairman London Trades Council 1948-1949. Joined Labour Party 1929, foundation member Socialist League 1932. Represented RCA on EC of NFPW. In November 1946 co-opted to LRD EC and in 1947 served on its publication committee. LRD Vice-Chairman 1948-0ctober 1949. Sponsored Parliamentary candidate.
[27]. F. Tonge (Paddington). Secretary Swindon branch 1932-1938, Paddington 1941-1943. EC 1943-1951. Swindon Labour Councillor, later elected to London CC. Chairman, London Political Advisory Council; Chairman London Trades Council 1951. During his year of office, the TUC refused to register the Council, whereupon the RCA disaffiliated. Unsponsored Parliamentary candidate.
[28]. Sales of the Railwaymen's Vigilance Movement's newspaper Railway Vigilant reached 12,000. It was proscribed by the Labour Party in 1934.
[29]. TUC Annual Report 1926.
[30]. TUC Annual Report 1928.
[31]. S. Purkis (Railway Clearing House). Joined RCA 1911 and in 1914 worked with G. D. R Cole to build the Guild Socialist Movement He was one of the few branch members to pledge himself to participate in the 1919 "recognition" strike. Chairman of the branch strike committee during the General Strike. EC 1936-1939.
[32]. RCA EC Minutes 27th January 1929.
[33]. RCA EC Minutes 29th May 1929.
[34]. RCA EC Minutes 27th January 1929.
[35]. This rule authorised the EC to dismiss members for actions they considered detrimental to the interests of the RCA.
[36]. When A. G. Walkden became an MP he returned his Parliamentary salary of £400 p.a. to RCA.
[37]. RCA EC Minutes 25th February 1930.
[38]. The Railway Service Journal August 1936.
[39]. G. Chandler (Marylebone No.2). Joined RCA 1919. EC 1939-1943 and 1951-1957. President Marylebone Trades Council 1939. President Socialist Fellowship 1946-1955. Elected as Labour Councillor on Middlesex CC 1946.
[40]. The Railway Service Journal February 1928.
[41]. The Railway Service Journal March 1928.
[42]. TUC Annual Report 1929.
[43]. TUC Annual Report 1929.
[44]. Sunday Worker 15th September 1929.
[45]. RCA EC Minutes 22nd January 1929.
[46]. P. T. Morris JP (Swansea). Joined RCA 1911. EC 1931-1936; National RCA Treasurer 1937-1943; President 1943-1953. Elected to Swansea Borough Council 1927, Alderman, Deputy Mayor 1944-1945, Mayor 1955. MP 1945-1959.
[47]. The Railway Service Journal June 1930.
[48]. The Times 23rd May 1930.
[49]. TUC Annual Report 1929.
[50]. The Railway Service Journal May 1929.
[51]. The Railway Service Journal November 1929.
[52]. During the Spanish Civil War D. A. Wilson was Secretary of the Bradford Aid Committee. He served on Bradford Trades Council EC and lectured for the WEA. In 1961 he became a Master of Arts at the age of 67.
Transport Salaried Staffs' Association Registered Head Office: Walkden House, 10 Melton Street, London, England
© 1996-2008 TSSA. All rights reserved.