Interim Report - REPORT_NO67, 1963

1. 136. The complaint of the N.U.B.E is contained in three communications dated respectively 12 March, 14 May and 24 May 1962. Support for the complaint was expressed by the T.U.C in a communication dated 30 March 1962, by which the Congress forwarded to the I.L.O the first document of complaint submitted by the N.U.B.E.
2. 137. The Government of the United Kingdom, by a communication dated 6 September 1962, forwarded statements on the matter from the directorates and staff associations of the banks particularly concerned in the complaint, but the Government itself made no observations.
3. 138. The Government of the United Kingdom has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 139. The main theme of the complaint is that the Government is failing to ensure the application of the provisions of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), so far as certain British banks are concerned, and, in particular, the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 2, of that Convention. In addition to making certain observations of a more general character the complaining organisation deals especially in its allegations with the situation in four particular banks and with the situation at the national level with regard to negotiating machinery affecting the banking profession as a whole.
2. 140. The National Union of Bank Employees (N.U.B.E.) is the result of a merger in 1946 of the Bank Officers' Guild, formed in 1918 to represent staffs of English and Welsh banks, and the Scottish Bankers' Association, formed in 1919. The N.U.B.E contends that banking employers in the United Kingdom are preventing it from exercising its normal trade union functions by favouring the existence, in the major banks, of internal staff associations. The complaining organisation alleges that the refusal of the banks to recognise it for negotiating purposes and their use of the staff associations in order to avoid having to do so is, especially, a contravention of Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
3. 141. The complaining organisation declares that the fundamental difference between itself and the bank staff associations is that, while the Union is an independent and national body completely supported by its members' subscriptions and employing its own full-time officials, each staff association is limited to one bank and is not independent of the employer. [n support of this last contention, the Union alleges that, in a programme entitled " Workshop " broadcast on the British Broadcasting Corporation's Home Service on 21 October 1960, Mr. J. J. Ellis, Chairman of the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations, admitted, with respect to the bank staff associations, that " the salaries of their officials are paid by the banks, office premises are generally provided free of charge or at a nominal rent ", and states also that their magazines and literature are subsidised by the banks.
4. 142. Since publicity was given to the Union's decision in August 1960 to submit a complaint to the I.L.O, it is alleged, there has been an increase in staff association activity and reconstitution, some associations have increased their subscriptions and some have taken claims to arbitration. Nevertheless, it is alleged, the basic situation is the same as it was in August 1960.
5. 143. The complaining organisation declares that, at the moment, it is recognised by Barclays Bank, Barclays Bank D.C.O, British Linen Bank, C.W.S, S.C.W.S and National Banks, the Netherlands Bank of South Africa, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Trustee Savings Banks Employers' Council, and that the Midland and Williams Deacon's Banks grant the Union the right to make representations, as do many of the foreign, overseas and Commonwealth banks; the Westminster Bank allows the Union to make representations on matters other than pay and Lloyds Bank has accorded the right of personal interview between the General Secretary of the N.U.B.E and the Chairman of the Bank. The complainant contends that the situation in which the bankers deliberately frustrate proper trade union practice is generally unknown elsewhere in British industry except in insurance, where the directors of the companies are often the same persons who direct the banks.
6. 144. The complaining organisation then states its case in relation to the District Bank Ltd., Martins Bank Ltd., the National Provincial Bank Ltd. and the Yorkshire Bank Ltd., respectively. In this connection the T.U.C itself states that its General Council has tried to help the N.U.B.E to obtain recognition and the establishment of joint machinery for consultation and negotiation, and that the aid of the Ministry of Labour has been invoked on a number of occasions, with partial success in some banks but not in the four banks in question.
7. 145. The N.U.B.E claims that in the District Bank it has 1,565 members, i.e. 40 per cent of the total staff of some 3,900, but that it is denied any access whatever to the management. The Staff Association concerned, with a 42 per cent membership, is accorded the right of full consultation with the Bank. This Staff Association is alleged to have existed for years on the basis of automatic membership without subscription, the first time membership became voluntary, with payment of subscriptions, being in 1940 when the National Arbitration Order came into force, this also being the first time that any committee election was held. The Association signed an arbitration agreement with the Bank on 26 July 1955.
8. 146. The N.U.B.E claims that this Bank has been hostile to it throughout its existence. On 9 November 1935, it is alleged, a head office circular issued to branch managers called for the names of all members of each branch who were not members of the Bank Officers' Guild (the former title of the N.U.B.E.); the circular stated that " the information would be regarded as confidential and would all information be returned to the Intelligence Department of the Head Office of the District Bank ". On 5 November 1936, it is alleged, a circular from the General Managers of the District Bank was issued, asking " will those members of the staff who have resigned or decided to resign from the Guild to mark their disapproval of the policy of the Guild be good enough to advise us to that effect ". This circular asked for replies to be sent in envelopes addressed to the Chief General Manager of the District Bank. It is alleged that a further circular from the head office of the Bank was issued on 16 November 1936, stating that there had been a great response to the earlier circular and asking the staff to accept this " as a general expression of the appreciation and thanks of the General Managers ", and requesting details of persons who had not resigned from the Guild because they were taking advantages of special discount of purchase facilities, stating in this respect that " endeavours will then be made to meet the special circumstances of the case ". It is obvious, declares the N.U.B.E, that the information requested in these three circulars was for purposes of interference with the trade union and of victimisation. The complainant refers to a District Bank Staff Association circular, issued later, as having made a scurrilous attack on the N.U.B.E.
9. 147. The complainant declares that the District Bank Staff Association bars non-clerical or messenger staff from membership and that, while the majority of these persons are members of the N.U.B.E, there are no arrangements for dealing with their wage and employment claims because the Bank does not recognise the N.U.B.E.
10. 148. In 1960, it is alleged, the N.U.B.E achieved a majority membership in the District Bank, but was still refused recognition. Since then its membership has fluctuated.
11. 149. The N.U.B.E claims that the existence of the District Bank Staff Association is dependent on the Bank. According to its statement of account for 1961, the Association's annual income, declares the complainant, was £750 and its expense account listed nothing for rent of premises or salary of officials. The complainant also contends that the Staff Association receives information from the head office of the Bank regarding the number and location of new entrants and can then enclose a Staff Association membership form together with the other forms required for signature by the Bank, new entrants often being led in this way to sign the form in the belief that it is part of the conditions of service. The complainant concludes that the District Bank gives financial support to the Staff Association for the purpose of dominating it.
12. 150. The N.U.B.E claims that in Martins Bank it has 43 per cent of the staff as members against 49 per cent belonging to the Staff Association, although in August 1960 the N.U.B.E had a majority membership. It is stated that the Staff Association was founded in 1920, membership being automatic and no subscriptions being paid until, after the passing of the National Arbitration Order in 1940, membership became voluntary and subscriptions were levied. The Staff Association signed an arbitration agreement with the Bank on 5 July 1954. Recently the subscription to the Staff Association varied from 2s. 6d. to 7s. 6d, but, declares the N.U.B.E, the maximum (for managers) was raised to 15s per year when it was known that a complaint was to be made to the I.L.O. In the view of the complainant, this does not permit of financial independence from the employers, and officials' salaries, office premises, etc. are given by the Bank to the Association free of charge. The N.U.B.E refers in this connection to the particular cases of a Mr. J. G. Podmore and a Miss D. M. Wheeler, When Mr. Podmore was appointed General Secretary of the Staff Association in 1959, it is alleged, his move from London district to the Staff Association was reported in the issue for winter 1959 of Martins Bank Magazine, and the transfer of Miss Wheeler from Liverpool district to the Staff Association office was noted in the issue for summer 1960. The N.U.B.E declares that the salaries of both Miss Wheeler, who acts as secretary-typist of the Association, and of Mr. Podmore are paid by the Bank. Further, the complainant alleges, Staff Association representatives are calling at different Martins Bank offices during working hours to recruit members for the Association; these persons, who are full-time employees of the Bank, are allowed to take time off for this purpose.
13. 151. The Martins Bank Staff Association produces a booklet called Inside Information, containing a summary of the major conditions of service. The complainant declares that this is a 68-page booklet, printed on fairly expensive paper, and cannot understand how the Association can pay for it out of an annual income of £600 to £700 at most. In addition a bulletin is published at 6d a copy and, declares the complainant, this cannot possibly cover the cost of publication.
14. 152. On 14 December 1959, it is alleged, when the N.U.B.E attained a majority staff membership in Martins Bank, the Union wrote to the Chairman asking for recognition; while the correspondence dragged on for nine months, teams of inspectors and managers toured each branch of the Bank to whip up enthusiasm for the Staff Association. According to the complainant every member of the staff was interviewed on Bank premises and in Bank time either by an inspector or a manager and considerable pressure was brought on every individual member to join the Association, so that by August 1960 it had a very slight lead in membership and the Bank refused recognition to the N.U.B.E because it did not represent a majority.
15. 153. The N.U.B.E alleges that envelopes used by the Martins Bank Staff Association are Bank envelopes and that the Bank mail is used for delivery, and Bank typewriters and Bank typists are also employed for this work.
16. 154. The Union concludes that the representation of managerial and clerical staff by the Association-which does not represent non-clerical staff is valueless, because the Association is financially dependent on and dominated by the management of Martins Bank.
17. 155. In the National Provincial Bank there are three staff associations: the Staff Association for Clerical and Managerial Staff (founded in 1919), the Ladies' Guild (founded in 1936) and the Messengers' Association (founded in 1941). The first two of these together have 8,531 members, i.e. 62 per cent of the total staffs, according to the N.U.B.E, against 3,521, or about 25 per cent, who are members of the Union.
18. 156. The complainant declares that this Bank is the only one of the " Big Five " in which the N.U.B.E is denied all access to management and that it is the most hostile to the Union, being the only one of the " Big Five ", for example, which refused to receive the General Secretary of the Union with regard to its memorandum on safety and security of staff against raids.
19. 157. The Staff Association (since December 1953) and the Ladies' Guild (since September 1954) have arbitration agreements with the Bank; neither, declares the N.U.B.E, has ever made use of them.
20. 158. The complainant states that none of these associations' balance sheets are published in Natproban, the associations' magazine, and that, apparently, their correspondence and circulars move from head office in the branch letter. It is alleged that the Staff Association has a rent-free room at head office, in Bishopsgate, London, and that most committee meetings are held on Bank premises.
21. 159. Evidence of employer domination, declares the complainant, emerges in various publications from time to time. They cite a letter from the two General Secretaries to all members of the Staff Association on 24 January 1942 mentioning " the generosity of the Directors in sending a copy of Natproban to each member of the permanent staff with the Forces "; a report of the Central Council meeting held on 21 and 22 July 1950 is alleged to have referred to a cash payment by the Bank and to have stated that " the June payment had been received with gratitude and appreciation " but that " its inadequacy to meet the needs of the Association was the subject of bitter comment ". The N.U.B.E states that in the Association President's column in the autumn 1960 issue of Natproban it was stated, with reference to the salary increases in July 1960: " Never before has a President been able to speak so freely of the Bank's generosity.... Never before has opportunity knocked so loud.... Never before have the staff of this Bank received in twelve months such a marked uplift in conditions." Yet, declares the N.U.B.E, these salary increases were identical with those granted in other banks and which were condemned as grossly inadequate by the majority of house staff associations, as well as by the N.U.B.E.
22. 160. The complainant alleges that, in a circular to branch managers, the Bank instructed that no circulars or printed or written matter relating to salaries or conditions of service, other than those put out by the head office or the staff associations, must be exhibited on any property of the Bank, and that this rule is still in force, a request by the N.U.B.E for its cancellation having been refused by the Chief General Manager in a letter to the Union dated 3 May 1951.
23. 161. When the N.U.B.E's intention of submitting a complaint to the I.L.O became known, it is alleged, the Staff Association of the National Provincial Bank stated that it would amend its Constitution with a view to possible registration. The N.U.B.E claims that the alterations made would not transform the house association into a bona fide trade union but that these facts prove that for 42 years the Association has been an employer dominated company union.
24. 162. The complainant alleges that the summer 1961 issue of Natproban deliberately misrepresents the N.U.B.E's approach to the I.L.O as an attempt to bully the staff associations. The complainant states that the Association's circular issued in November 1961 represents the N.U.B.E's affiliation to the T.U.C as a threat that the T.U.C might claim to represent bank employees.
25. 163. In conclusion the N.U.B.E declares that, in a letter dated 4 August 1961, the Ministry of Labour informed the T.U.C that the Minister had had discussions with Sir Oliver Franks, then Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, of which the National Provincial Bank is a constituent member, and that Sir Oliver had assured the Minister that:
    • in the Banks where the Staff Association is the recognised body for this purpose [i.e. discussion and negotiation with the management] they, however, take note of representations made by the National Union of Bank Employees on behalf of its members in the employment of the particular Bank.
    • Accordingly, on 14 September 1961, the General Secretary of the N.U.B.E wrote to the Chairman of the National Provincial Bank asking for an interview with the appropriate senior official to make representations on part-time day release, staff reporting procedure and annual holidays. In a letter dated 19 September 1961, it is alleged, one of the Joint General Managers replied on behalf of the Chief General Manager:
    • You will, I am sure, appreciate that matters appertaining to our staff are discussed with our Staff Association and it would be inappropriate for us to accede to your request for an interview. This, declare the complainants, appears to be in direct conflict with the assurance given by Sir Oliver Franks.
26. 164. The fourth bank criticised by the complainant is the Yorkshire Bank. From 1920 to 1933, it is alleged, membership of the Staff Committee of the Bank was automatic and no subscriptions were paid and no information as to activities was issued. In July 1933 its Constitution was reissued, accompanied by certain information containing the statement, according to the complainant, that what the Staff Committee offered to younger officials was " the means of expression on any subject to the Management of the Bank " and " it opens up to him an avenue along which he can prove to the Management his efficiency ". In 1946 the Staff Committee was reconstituted as the Staff Association, and, for the first time, membership became voluntary and a subscription was levied - 2s. 6d. per year for all members. The complainant considers that conditions of work in the Yorkshire Bank have always been much worse than those in the clearing banks and that the Staff Association has been singularly ineffective in obtaining benefits for the staff. In this connection the complainant refers to the position early in 1952 when representations were made for an improved salary scale and cites extracts from circulars then put out by the Staff Association, in which, it is alleged, the Association accepted as adequate and justifiable the reasons given by the directors for refusing an upward revision of salaries. The complainant states that it was only in 1960, after the threat of action by the N.U.B.E, that the Bank signed an arbitration agreement with the Staff Association.
27. 165. In this case also, it is alleged, the salaries of the Association officials are paid by the Bank, the premises of the Association are in the head office of the Bank and members of the committee have used Bank paper and envelopes to write to non-members for Staff Association purposes.
28. 166. The complainant alleges that by 1959 its membership in the Yorkshire Bank had greatly increased because of the dissatisfaction of the staff with their bad working conditions. In October 1959 a majority of the staff belonged to the N.U.B.E. The Union's request for recognition was refused in January 1960 and, it is alleged, the Bank took steps to revive the Staff Association, signed an arbitration agreement with it and issued many anti-trade-union leaflets.
29. 167. At present, the N.U.B.E claims 592 members in the Yorkshire Bank, practically 50 per cent of the staff of 1,200, but declares that it is completely denied any access to the Bank, so that its members in the Bank are denied the means of making representations through a normal trade union channel. The complainants state that, following the assurance given by Sir Oliver Franks mentioned in paragraph 163 above, their General Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Yorkshire Bank requesting an interview on part-time day release, staff reporting procedure and annual holidays. In his reply dated 3 October 1961, it is alleged, the Chairman stated:
    • I note the points you raise, which you wish to discuss with us. I might say that these, or similar points, have been raised by our own Staff Association. The Board have asked me to say that we should like to discuss the matter with this Bank's Staff Association, which is our recognised negotiating body. As soon as I hear from them I will write to you again.
    • In the complainant's view, this is in conflict with the statement made by Sir Oliver Franks to the Minister of Labour and is a flagrant denial of normal trade union rights.
30. 168. The complaining organisation bases its case essentially on Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and calls upon the Committee on Freedom of Association to declare that the provisions of this Article have been violated in the case of the staff associations of the four banks in question. While not asking the Committee for a ruling, the complainant considers also that the existence of internal house staff associations and institutional arbitration agreements infringe also Article 4 of the said Convention. Complainant declares that the four staff associations of these four banks are all constituent members of the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations (C.C.B.S.A.), a very loose form of federation which has no negotiating power with the Committee of London Clearing Bankers and does not-and has no mandate to-discuss questions of pay, this matter being left to the individual constituent members. Recently, the C.C.B.S.A. joined a Confederation known as the Conference of Professional and Public Service Organisations (C.O.P.P.S.O.), which is stated to have been refused representation on the National Economic Development Council. In the view of the complainant this is just a façade to give a pretention of activity and independence because, while the C.O.P.P.S.O is mainly concerned with pay questions, the C.C.B.S.A. cannot discuss such matters.
31. 169. The N.U.B.E contends that it is not its fault that no national machinery has been established. For many years, it is alleged, the N.U.B.E tried to get a workable joint conciliation machinery agreement with the C.C.B.S.A. and the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, With the help of the Ministry of Labour an agreement was signed between the N.U.B.E and the C.C.B.S.A., on 14 November 1955, with a view to their making a joint approach to the Committee of London Clearing Bankers in order to establish joint conciliation machinery. Unfortunately, the staff of Midland Bank already did not belong to the C.C.B.S.A., and, when the Lloyds Bank and National Provincial Bank staff associations withdrew from the plan, the initiative failed.
32. 170. In Scotland a joint conciliation council for banking was set up in January 1946, which the N.U.B.E joined in 1959. A few months later, two of the member banks withdrew from the employers' side, the staff associations did the same, and, finally, the existence of the machinery was terminated by the dissolution of the Scottish Banking Employers' Federation. Thus, it is alleged, the machinery was terminated by the Scottish banks with the connivance of their staff associations.
33. 171. The Government, without itself making an observation on the complaint, has forwarded statements from the four banks considered above and from their staff associations.
34. 172. With respect to the allegations relating to the District Bank analysed in paragraphs 145 to 149 above, the Government furnishes statements by the District Bank and by the District Bank Staff Association.
35. 173. The District Bank Ltd. states that its attitude is summarised in the statement made by Sir Oliver Franks to the Minister of Labour in July 1961. It cites him, more fully than do the complainants (see paragraph 163), as having said:
    • The staff of the banks are completely free to join the National Union of Bank Employees or a staff association if they wish to do so, and that the banks do not seek to influence the decision of their staff in any way. Most of the banks take the view, however, that for practical reasons they are not prepared to discuss or negotiate with more than one organisation, and it is their present practice to discuss or negotiate with the organisation which has been recognised as representative of their staff. In the banks where the staff association is the recognised body for this purpose they, however, take note of representations made by the National Union of Bank Employees on behalf of its members in the employment of the particular bank.
36. 174. The Bank argues that the existing arrangements with the Staff Association provide appropriate negotiating machinery, with provision for independent arbitration.
37. 175. The Bank states that the claim of majority membership by the N.U.B.E in 1960 has never been established and that the Union's quoted membership now is 1,565 as against the 2,012 of the Staff Association.
38. 176. The Bank considers that the incidents alleged to have taken place in 1936 have no relation to present conditions and denies that there is any hostility or interference by the Bank. The staff can join the N.U.B.E or the Association without being influenced by the Bank; membership in the N.U.B.E is not detrimental to their position or prospects.
39. 177. It is claimed that the Staff Association is entirely free from domination and that, while its officials are given paid leave to attend meetings, etc., a similar privilege is allowed to N.U.B.E officials.
40. 178. With regard to the non-clerical staff, less than 2 1/2 per cent of the total, the Bank declares that it takes note of N.U.B.E representations concerning wages and conditions of service.
41. 179. The District Bank Staff Association confirms the respective organised membership figures given by the Bank and does not agree that the N.U.B.E had a majority membership in 1960. The Association states that such upsurge in its activity as there may have been in the past year or two is the result not of the moves by the N.U.B.E but of its determination to continue to represent the staff effectively and to the natural desire to enlist increased support from the staff by encouraging more of them to join the Association. It does not admit non-clerical staff but states that it watches their interests and " has on several occasions made successful representations on their behalf ".
42. 180. The Staff Association contends that the N.U.B.E prepares forms of resignation from the Association to be signed by its members and uses the Bank's branch mailing system and stationery for their transmission.
43. 181. The Staff Association considers that the events in 1936, referred to in the allegations, have no significance because the Association was democratically constituted in 1940, and denies that in its present form it is employer-dominated. In this connection, it cites the 1955 agreement between the N.U.B.E and the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations.
44. 182. The Association admits that its Secretary, "who performs a large proportion of his duties in his own time, is paid by the Bank " and that it is afforded other facilities. It sees little difference between this and the performance of duties by shop stewards, on the employer's premises and in the employer's time, of their union duties, which is common industrial practice. Apart from the use of premises, declares the Association, it is entirely self-supporting and finances the major part of its activities. Meetings are sometimes held on Bank premises, but without affecting the work of the Bank. It is denied that application forms for membership in the Association are enclosed with the forms which new entrants to the Bank must sign. A personal letter is sent separately to each new entrant by the Association. A copy of this letter is furnished, in which it is stated that only one of the seven large joint stock banks has recognised the N.U.B.E and that, therefore, " at present effective representation can only be made through your Staff Association ".
45. 183. The Association claims to function as a union, its Constitution and rules having been approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies in case it should seek future registration. It states that it has instituted insurance and trade concession arrangements for its members.
46. 184. Martins Bank, the allegations relating to which are analysed in paragraphs 150 to 154 above, considers that in recognising only the Staff Association it is carrying out the wishes of the majority of the staff. The arbitration agreement has twice been invoked by the Association, but, states the Bank, settlements satisfactory to the Association were reached. Negotiation, claims this employer, has led to conditions in the Bank being superior in several respects to those in any other bank. The Bank agrees that the Staff Association was constituted on a voluntary membership and subscription-paying basis in 1940, but states that it has no reason to believe that the recent increase in subscriptions referred to by the N.U.B.E had any connection with its approach to the I.L.O.
47. 185. The Bank pays in full the salary of the General Secretary of the Association at the same level as his salary at the time of election; he is appointed and re-elected annually by the Council of the Association and is accountable only to the Council, and the Bank states that it exercises no influence on him in that office but it is understood that he will administer certain welfare schemes on behalf of the Bank. The General Secretary of the Association is an administrative officer and executive control rests with the elected officers. The Bank provides a small room for the Secretary and typist at a low rental and also pays the salary of the shorthand-typist. Such financial assistance, declares the Bank, merely facilitates the day-to-day running of the General Secretary's office and cannot possibly influence the Association's independence. In thus facilitating the work of their employees' representatives, the Bank considers that it is only acting like all enlightened employers; it also allows staff members who are N.U.B.E officials to have time off without loss of pay to attend executive meetings, conferences, etc. All staff movements are reported in Martins Bank Magazine for the interest of the staff in general; in no sense, declares the Bank, does this mean that the Bank appoints any Staff Association official.
48. 186. The booklet Inside Information referred to by the complainant (see paragraph 151) was prepared by the Staff Association. The Bank found the draft to be of such high quality and interest that it agreed to pay the cost of printing. The Bank has nothing to do with the Bulletin.
49. 187. The Bank denies that the increase in Staff Association activity in 1960 had any connection with the correspondence in that year between the Bank and the N.U.B.E and declares that the arrangements for and financing of its 1960 campaign were organised by the Staff Association alone and that the reference to " inspectors and managers " visiting branches is meaningless, because the voluntary officials of the Association are drawn from various levels of staff.
50. 188. So far as the Bank is aware, membership of the Staff Association has never been less than N.U. B.E. membership in the Bank. The Bank denies that in writing to the N.U.B.E. it said it would not agree to give recognition, to the N.U.B.E merely because the Union did not have majority membership in the Bank-in the letter dated 14 April 1960 to the General Secretary of the N.U.B.E, the Chief General Manager of the Bank stated that the question of membership was not the governing factor. The claim for recognition was rejected principally because there was no adequate reason why any change should be made.
51. 189. The Bank states that the Staff Association pays for its own stationery, typewriters and other office equipment. The Association makes use of the Bank's branch postal system, but this is a facility " which would normally be available to any staff representative body recognised by the Bank ". Other postage is paid by the Staff Association.
52. 190. With regard to the contention of the N.U.B.E in its letter dated 24 May 1962 that full-time employees were being given time off by the Bank to call on branches during working hours to recruit members for the Staff Association, the Bank states that the Council and district officials of the Staff Association " naturally seek to maintain close contact with their members at branches and the co-operation of the Bank in these matters is in the best interests of staff relations ".
53. 191. Martins Bank Staff Association declares that its own survey in December 1961 indicated that the N.U.B.E's membership in Martins Bank did not exceed 33 per cent of the staff as against 53 per cent in the Staff Association. It doubts whether N.U.B.E member-ship " has ever reached 50 per cent of the active clerical staff or has ever exceeded our own Association membership ". The Association considers it impossible that the N.U.B.E could ever have assessed the membership of the Association accurately. In a poster put out by the N.U.B.E in January 1960, the Union claimed 2,543 members in the Bank as against approximately 2,000 in the Staff Association. The Association claims that the 2,543 figure was misleading because it included some members whose subscriptions were up to 15 months in arrears, and, in any case, did not represent a majority of the staff. The Staff Association adds further information to the effect that its own membership at the end of February 1960 was 2,737, or 51.4 per cent of the staff of 5,325, and at the end of February 1962, 3,158, or 53 per cent of the staff of 5,957.
54. 192. Martins Bank Staff Association was formed in 1940, the previous Staff Representative Committee having existed since 1920; membership is voluntary and there is no coercion by the employers to join. The Association alleges that in some cases senior officials in the Bank who adhere to the N.U.B.E have exercised pressure in favour of that Union. The Association declares that the decision to increase subscriptions was taken in May 1959, after a subcommittee had reported on the matter in June 1958, long before the N.U.B.E considered approaching the I.L.O. In March 1960 the maximum subscription of 15s per annum became payable by all male members over 21 years of age.
55. 193. The Association declares that Mr. Podmore was elected its General Secretary in 1959 and took over the administration of its several activities, such as the staff sickness fund, which is open to the whole staff, but understands that he would have to perform such Bank duties as he might be called upon to perform. The Association points out that the work of Mr. Podmore on social funds and his liability to do Bank work if required mean that he is not seconded from banking so as to have full-time facilities for Association work although " it would be in accordance with permitted custom to do so ". In view of the fact that disputes in banking do not arise with the same suddenness as in industry generally, the General Secretary has time to study and discuss problems from all sources as do shop stewards elsewhere; what he does not handle he refers to other officials or the Executive of the Association. His duties do not compare with those of a general secretary of an industrial union. The administration of the staff sickness and accident fund by the General Secretary of the Association is regarded as part of his banking duties. In these and other welfare matters he advises members of the staff on their problems. The Association considers that the facilities granted to him do not differ from similar facilities normally granted to union officials, shop stewards, etc. Miss Wheeler is on the Bank relief staff and also performs Bank duties. In this connection the Association refers to the words in Article 1, paragraph 2 (b) of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), affording protection against anti-union acts in respect to participation in union activities " with the consent of the employer within working hours ". The Association further claims to be a union within the definition contained in the legislation of the United Kingdom. The Association submits that the granting of time to its officials is in accordance with the Convention and with industrial practice in the United Kingdom and has no relevancy to the charge that the Association is employer-dominated; it points out also that N.U.B.E members are also given time off to attend their union meetings.
56. 194. The Staff Association declares that the Government had directed that the position of the general secretary of a bank staff association is not contrary to general industrial practice in the United Kingdom. It cites as follows the statement made in the House of Commons on 17 March 1961 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour:
    • In the meantime I would merely say that this is not a matter which can be settled on the basis of general assertions nor do I think that simply the placing of certain facilities at the disposal of a particular association can be said to be with the object of placing the organisation under the control of the employer. This is a very material point, as Hon. Members will see if they look at Article 2 of the Convention. As I read it, it certainly suggests to me that the Convention is not broken by the employer unless the support which he gives to the workers' organisation-this is an important point is for the purpose of domination and control. I think that this must be right. There obviously must be many cases of which Hon. Members know where a shop steward is paid his wages and does a lot of work for h is union during the time for which he is paid his wages by his employer. A convenor may be paid wages and also be given office facilities. If one took a very strict interpretation of the Convention those activities might be open to question.
57. 195. As further evidence in this connection the Staff Association refers to an article by Mr. H. A. Clegg, a well-known authority on industrial relations, in the June 1961 issue of Personnel Management, in which he is reported as stating, with reference to shop stewards in industry, that:
    • most of their business is done in the firm's time (in our sample eleven hours of their employer's time compared with six hours of their own) and most of this time is spent not on clerical work but in discussing problems with their constituents and negotiating with foremen and managers. We were also startled by the relatively large number of full-time shop stewards in our sample, and searched for other evidence on the point. We found some, and, although we cannot be as definite as we would have wished, it is clear that the number of union representatives who are paid by their employers to spend all of their time or almost all of their time on union work is bigger than is generally supposed and than unions and employers are usually willing to admit.
58. 196. The Martins Bank Staff Association declares that the booklet Inside Information, which it prepared, details the benefits to the staff which were " nearly all negotiated and obtained by this Staff Association ". The Bank paid for the printing. The Association regards this as a good example of co-operation between employers and employees. As a result, the staff have a clear picture before them of the conditions of service " together with a knowledge of the organisation which represents them ". Every member of the staff was and is entitled to receive a copy free of charge.
59. 197. The magazine Bulletin obtains most of its articles free from members of the staff. The small charge made, plus advertising revenue, leave a very small loss which is easily met out of the Association's annual income of £1,800 per annum. The Association forwarded with its statement copies of the issues of the Bulletin since it began in March 1960.
60. 198. The Staff Association denies that its membership drive in 1960 had any relation to the N.U.B.E's written application on 14 December 1959 for recognition by the Bank, of which the Association disclaims all knowledge. The Association claims that its intention to promote its campaign was first suggested by its Chairman in the summer of 1959 and discussed by him with the London District Committee Association in September, the Council of the Association formally deciding, on 5 October 1959, that the campaign should be undertaken. The Association has forwarded the May 1960 issue of the N.U.B.E magazine, the Bank Officer, and directs attention to the article therein relating to the resolution of the Executive Committee of the N.U.B.E, in November 1959, to ask the District Bank and Martins Bank for recognition. In the October 1960 issue of its own Bulletin, also forwarded by the Staff Association, the latter replies to the N.U.B.E article and points out that the Association's campaign had been formulated before that of the N.U.B.E.
61. 199. In answer to the allegation that teams of inspectors and managers visited the branches on its behalf, the Association names three managers, one assistant manager, four signing authorities and six clerks as having made visits, as well as the Chairman and General, Secretary of the Association. All those persons were members of the Council of the Association and the Association denies that any inspector undertook such visits.
62. 200. The Staff Association concludes by reaffirming that it is not financially dependent on the employers for its existence. As the recognised negotiating body, it declares, it has certain privileges, including the use of the branch postal system, just as the N.U.B.E. " has similar privileges from those few banks where it is recognised ". This costs the Bank nothing and the Association brings its own equipment, typewriters and stationery.
63. 201. The National Provincial Bank replies to the allegations analysed in paragraphs 155 to 163 above. It considers that the wishes of the staff are reflected by the superior membership of the internal staff associations; so long as this situation continues, it will continue to negotiate with those associations and, as it does not consider it practicable to negotiate with two different bodies, official recognition of the N.U.B.E is precluded. The Bank declares that the associations are entirely independent, deriving their income wholly from members' subscriptions and paying the cost of salaries of their clerical staff, rent for their office on Bank premises and publication of their organ without any financial help from the Bank, and that all the elected officials work on a voluntary basis and are fully employed on normal banking duties.
64. 202. With reference to the request of the N.U.B.E in March 1961 to discuss security of staff, the Bank first requested a copy of the Union's memorandum on the matter and then replied to the effect that it contained nothing which had not already been considered by the Bank.
65. 203. The fact that certain of the associations' correspondence and circulars are dispatched through the medium of the head office letter does not, in the view of the Bank, involve financial support, as they form " an infinitesimal part " of the contents. The Bank claims that its action in paying for Natproban, the Association magazine, to be sent to staff members in the Forces, implies no domination at all. It is true that only the internal associations may have their printed or written matter exhibited in the Bank; having recognised the staff associations, the Bank considers that it would be illogical to allow the exhibition of notices or literature of other organisations. The Bank denies that it in any way inspired changes in the Constitution of the Staff Association. Note is taken of representations made in communications from the N.U.B.E to the Bank, but discussion and negotiation take place only with the recognised associations.
66. 204. The National Provincial Bank Staff Association declares that its President and other officials have many functions comparable with those of shop stewards in many sectors and, according to the Industrial Relations Handbook of the Ministry of Labour, in the case of shop stewards it is common practice for employers to make reasonable provision by way of time off, accommodation for meetings and direct access to management. All the central officials of the Staff Association work for the Association in their own leisure time, except for the quarterly meetings of the Central Council and a few other meetings attended by not more than three members of the Executive Committee at a time.
67. 205. As to membership, the Association accepts the complainant's figures, and states that the £1 1s. subscription has not been changed for 15 years and that recent amendments to its rules were purely routine as a result of the reorganisation of the London district into five districts. The Association refers to the House of Commons' debate on 17 March 1961 as evidence of what kind of substantial membership should warrant recognition for an organisation. In particular, the Association declares that Mr. Richard Marsh, M. P., who initiated the debate, stated:
    • The National Union of Bank Employees... are not asking for recognition in every bank but... they ask that in banks... where they have a majority or a substantial number of the staff employed they should have direct negotiating rights.
    • In reply, states the association, Sir W. Robson Brown declared:
    • There is a difference between a bare majority and a substantial majority... if there is a substantial majority of about 75 per cent. I think the cause deserves great sympathy.
68. 206. The accounts of the Association are scrutinised annually by its Central Council, the members of which can discuss them in their district committees. The accounts for the five years ending in 1960 are appended to the association's statement.
69. 207. The Association considers that the action of the Bank in sending the Association's journal to staff members in the Forces was in fact a " generous " gesture as stated. This implied no financial domination at all. Again, the comments of the Association's President regarding the satisfactory nature of conditions in the Bank referred to by the complainant (see paragraph 159 above) did not refer simply to the salary increases granted in 1960 but to improvements for the staff as a whole over a period of 12 months.
70. 208. The Association claims that the complaint is an attempt by the N.U.B.E, with its 20 per cent membership, to exterminate an Association which has a 62 per cent membership. While the N.U.B.E's affiliation with the T.U.C is its own affair, the Association maintains that the majority of professional and clerical organisations are not affiliated to the T.U.C, that the T.U.C sometimes claims to speak for all affiliated unions and that it might do so for the N.U.B.E and, by extension, for all bank employees.
71. 209. The National Provincial Bank Staff Association forwards a copy of its Declaration of Independence issued in the spring of 1961. It sets out what the Association considers to be the essential conditions for ensuring the independence of an association. As far as financial independence is concerned, the declaration states that " whilst it is an exaggeration to say that any employee organisation which is not independent is useless ", the essential condition is that the association " must be financially independent: that is to say it must be able to meet the whole of its own costs from members' subscriptions and be able to build up a sufficient reserve to meet any foreseeable crisis or sudden call on its funds, e.g. arbitration ". The Association considers that it fulfils this and the other necessary conditions of independence--that it depends on no employer influence in recruiting members, that its officers must be free to perform their functions without interference by the employers and that it must be entirely unfettered in advocating the staff cause. If an association is independent, it is contended, " it matters not a scrap even if the salaries of the elected representatives of the Staff Association are paid by the Bank.... Independence does not mean ability to win every cause nor resort to force of one kind or another to do so. If serious disagreement arises there is entirely independent arbitration available."
72. 210. In reply to a demand made by the N.U.B.E for an impartial parliamentary inquiry into the entire field of British bank staff representation, the National Provincial Bank Staff Association, quoting from its own journal, reproducing a letter which it addressed to The Times on 26 April 1961, states that it would " welcome an impartial parliamentary enquiry ".
73. 211. The National Provincial Bank Ladies' Guild also furnishes similar financial evidence to demonstrate its independence and to show that, in its case also, all the officials work for the Association in their own free time and work full time on their ordinary banking duties. Arbitration has not so far been resorted to by the Guild, but arbitration is available.
74. 212. The National Provincial Bank Messengers' Association states that it was set up in 1941, has 75 per cent of the category as members and is entirely independent; its entire income is derived from subscriptions and its elected officials work voluntarily and are fully engaged on normal Bank duties.
75. 213. The Yorkshire Bank, the allegations concerning which are analysed in paragraphs 164 to 167 above, denies that its Staff Association is dominated in any way, pointing out that the Association can compel recourse to an arbitration tribunal on any unresolved issue or dispute. The Bank declares that no whole-time officials are seconded to the Association by the Bank, that much of the work of the Staff Association is done by its elected representatives during their free time, that no literature is subsidised by the Bank and that, while the Association has free use of Bank premises for committee meetings, these do not total over 100 hours per year.
76. 214. The Bank denies that the publicised intention of the N.U.B.E to approach the I.L.O had any influence on the Bank or resulted in increased activity or reconstitution in the case of the Staff Association.
77. 215. The Bank agrees with the N.U.B.E's description of the old association but states that this was dissolved 27 years ago and has no relevance to the present complaint.
78. 216. The Bank declines to answer the N.U.B.E's claim that " conditions of work " in the Yorkshire Bank are inferior to those in other banks, because it is impossible to answer a charge which is so vague and does not specify to which conditions (hours, accommodation, etc.) reference is made. In partial answer, however, the Bank refers to some of the improvements claimed to have been brought about in 1960 and 1961 by the initiative of the Staff Association-scheme of late-work payments, improved payments in respect of privately-owned cars used on Bank business, free insurance scheme covering injury in course of hold-ups, earlier Saturday closing hour, increased lodging allowances, extension of scope of pensions scheme, and, in 1962 and earlier, certain salary increases.
79. 217. If in any cases members of the Association have used Bank paper and envelopes to write to non-members, this has been an irregularity-a trivial irregularity, says the Bank, which has no doubt been committed on behalf of the N.U.B.E also.
80. 218. The Bank denies that the increase in N.U.B.E membership in the Bank in 1960 was due to staff dissatisfaction with conditions of office accommodation. The Bank claims that the retention of traditional technical methods of working have been necessitated, because no new mechanical methods to replace them have so far been devised which would be adaptable to the needs of a Bank dealing primarily with a very large number of small savings accounts.
81. 219. The Bank denies that, following the demand for recognition by the N.U.B.E in 1960, it took steps to resurrect the Staff Association or subsidised anti-trade union propaganda. The Association needed no stimulation. The Bank also refers to the agreement signed by the N.U.B.E in November 1955 with the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations (see paragraph 229 below) as evidence of the independence of the Yorkshire Bank Staff Association, stating that in that agreement the N.U.B.E acknowledged that " the members of the C.C.B.S.A. consisted of members whose organisations were entirely controlled by their members independently of their employers ". The Yorkshire Bank Staff Association was a founder constituent of the C.C.B.S.A.
82. 220. With regard to the statement of Sir Oliver Franks referred to in paragraph 163 above, the Bank points out that it is not committed because the statement was made by Sir Oliver on behalf of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, of which the Yorkshire Bank has never been a member.
83. 221. The Yorkshire Bank Staff Association denies that it is in any way under the domination of the Bank, in support of which contention it argues that membership of the Association is voluntary, a subscription is payable by all members, and the management of the Bank exercises no pressure to cause employees to join the Association. The Association agrees with the facts of its early history as given by the complainants but considers them irrelevant to present conditions. It denies that nothing was done to reconstitute the Association until 1946, stating that it was placed on a voluntary and subscription-paying basis in 1935.
84. 222. The Association denies that conditions of work in the Yorkshire Bank have been much worse than in the clearing banks, states that the N.U.B.E has not defined the " conditions " referred to and argues that, by reason of the efforts of the Association, the salary scale in the Yorkshire Bank bears comparison with the salary structure in the clearing banks, while other conditions have been improved in many ways as the result of deliberation or suggestions by the Association.
85. 223. The Association denies that the salaries of its officials are paid by the Bank, stating that they are all full-time officials of the Bank and paid by the Bank as such. When they have to be given time off and when use of Bank premises is granted, the position is no different from that of shop stewards in other occupations.
86. 224. The Association denies that it was inactive prior to October 1959, when the N.U.B.E claimed a majority membership in the Bank. The arbitration agreement signed between the Bank and the Association on 16 March 1960 was the result of negotiations which began on 2 February 1959. The Association does not deny the membership figures claimed by the N.U.B.E, 599 in August 1960, and 592 at the date of the complaint. The Association declares that " it is not everybody who would wish to be represented by a trade union as applied by the T.U.C." and that " a large percentage of banking employees do not wish to be members of a trade union ". The Association considers that it exercises " all the functions of a trade union, with the exception of the right to strike ".
87. 225. Finally, observations have been forwarded by the C.C.B.S.A., whose constituents include especially the staff associations of the clearing banks. It denies that the staff associations are dominated by the employers and refers to the memorandum signed in November 1955 between the N.U.B.E and the C.C.B.S.A. as confirming that bank staff associations are " properly constituted organisations entirely controlled by their members independently of the employers ". The C.C.B.S.A. points out that the desire not to be affiliated to the T.U.C exists not only among bank staffs but also among the three-quarters of a million white-collar workers whose unions and associations are not affiliated to the T.U.C and are associated in the C.O.P.P.S.O, a list of whose constituents is furnished by the C.C.B.S.A. The 12 staff associations belonging to C.C.B.S.A. had about 62,000 members out of the total of some 110,000 employees of the banks concerned, but C.C.B.S.A. admits that a considerable amount of N.U.B.E membership exists in other banks.
88. 226. The C.C.B.S.A. agrees that one difference between the staff associations and the N.U.B.E is the desire of the latter for national negotiation on all matters as opposed to negotiation on a bank-to-bank basis. But, especially, the staff associations believe that negotiations with the banks should be carried on by persons who have current first-hand experience of banking conditions, which, in view of the needs of secrecy, security and staff structure, can only be ensured by internal associations.
89. 227. According to the C.C.B.S.A., five of its 12 constituent associations have secretaries who, in addition to their association work, undertake welfare work for which the bank would otherwise have to employ extra labour. The other seven secretaries are engaged in the normal work of the bank and do most of their association work in their spare time. Negotiation is done by the lay officials of the committees, who have their normal bank duties to perform. Any increase in staff association activity and reconstitution since 1960, declares C.C.B.S.A., is part of normal evolution, and it accuses the N.U.B.E of poaching to increase its membership.
90. 228. In the view of the C.C.B.S.A. the N.U.B.E is interpreting Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), as meaning that the Government must necessarily take measures to establish national negotiating machinery. The C.C.B.S.A. denies that this is the case but claims, in any event, that it is not debarred by its Constitution from discussing remuneration. Its counterpart, the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, is not competent to discuss staff matters.
91. 229. In conclusion the C.C.B.S.A. gives its version of the history of past attempts to set up national machinery for consultation and negotiation. After the passing of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order in 1940, negotiations were carried on which resulted in July 1941 in the drawing up of agreed draft Constitutions for the staff side, consisting of the N.U.B.E. (then the Bank Officers' Guild) and the C.C.B.S.A., the employers' side and the Joint Conciliation Council. While the employers' side and the C.C.B.S.A. confirmed these Constitutions, the special delegate meeting of the N.U.B.E, it is contended, went against its own Executive and repudiated the arrangements. New discussions were held in 1951 and 1952. These finally broke down, declares the C.C.B.S.A., because the N.U.B.E delegate meeting again refused to " collaborate with internalism ". This led certain staff associations to seek the signing of their own arbitration agreements. A third attempt began with meetings, as before under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour, in December 1954 and January 1955. Tentative agreement was reached between the C.C.B.S.A. and the N.U.B.E and new approaches were made to the employers. Despite misgivings in the C.C.B.S.A. because, it is declared, the N.U.B.E still manifested its opposition to internalism, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed between them on 14 November 1955. The concluding paragraph read: " Mutual assurances having been given, it is jointly agreed that the N.U.B.E and the C.C.B.S.A. are properly constituted organisations entirely controlled by their members independently of the employers." A copy of this Agreement is furnished. This final attempt also came to nothing.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 230. There is one point which the Committee must make clear at the outset with respect to the remedy demanded by the N.U.B.E. When a complainant in submitting allegations seeks to base them on particular Articles of a Convention ratified by the government concerned rather than on other Articles and asks for a declaration by the Committee in relation to those particular Articles, this in no way restricts the scope of the examination by the Committee. It is entirely a matter for the Committee to decide, irrespective of what the parties may say, which are the principles relating to freedom of association in the light of which it considers it appropriate to examine each separate allegation which may come before it.
2. 231. Three main issues, indeed, are raised in this case. The first is that of union recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation, the second is the question of implementation of Article 2 (and to a lesser degree of Article 3) of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), ratified by the United Kingdom, and the third is the question of implementation of Article 4 of that Convention. A clearer picture of the situation may emerge if those issues are considered in the above order.
3. 232. In certain cases the Committee has rejected allegations concerning a refusal by an employer to bargain with a particular union on the ground that a government, having given legal recognition to trade unions as competent to regulate employment relations, is not under a duty to enforce collective bargaining by compulsory means, which would clearly alter the nature of such bargaining. This principle was first laid down by the Committee in certain cases in which the issue was raised in relation to the implementation of Article 3 of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), which of course is irrelevant in the present case. It has, however, applied the same principle in respect of a sovereign State in a case in which no Convention relating to freedom of association had been ratified by the government concerned. The principle was affirmed, however, in Case No. 96 relating to the United Kingdom, when the application of the provisions of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), was a factor taken into consideration. That case, however, was decided against a background of union security arrangements, in accordance with which several large unions had become associated in national negotiating machinery to the exclusion of one small unregistered organisation with only 30-odd members. The factual circumstances, therefore, are not comparable with those in the present case. In the present case, moreover, the whole question of the non-recognition of the N.U.B.E has to be examined in the light of a number of further circumstances, including the fact that the N.U.B.E has a substantial and in some cases a very substantial membership in the banks against which complaint is made, and including the further consideration that it is alleged, indeed, that no recognition of any bona fide trade union at all exists in those banks. If, for example, the N.U.B.E were to establish that no bona fide, independent trade union is recognised at all by those banks, the Committee would be faced with a situation which, in fact, it has never been called upon to examine hitherto in the light of a ratification by a government of either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right of Association and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The nearest approach to such a situation arose in Case No. 59 relating to Cyprus, in which neither of these two Conventions was applicable, although account had to be taken of the implementation of the ratified Freedom of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84). If in that case the Committee decided that the allegations did not call for further examination, it was only after noting that the Government had fulfilled its legal obligations under Article 3 of the said Convention No. 84-which are much less far-reaching than those assumed under Article 4 of Convention No. 98-and, in doing so, it had expressed its confidence that the Government would take all practical and possible measures to improve a situation which, despite the efforts hitherto made by the authorities, was admitted by the Government to be a situation in which industrial relations had not yet been established on a satisfactory basis. It is clear, therefore, that the issues relating to recognition raised in the present case are very complex, to be approached with caution and concerning which the past jurisprudence of the Committee cannot be said to have tied its hands with regard to the nature of the recommendations that it should make.
4. 233. It is appropriate at this juncture to take stock of such factual evidence as is available on this issue of recognition and the allied issue of representativeness, especially in the four banks mainly concerned. In doing so, it is appreciated that further and more specific evidence would have to be asked for before the Committee could make more than an approximate assessment.
5. 234. In the case of the District Bank, the N.U.B.E claims 40 per cent of the staff as members, against the 42 per cent of the Staff Association; it also claims that in 1960 its membership was larger than that of the Staff Association. The Staff Association and the Bank do not agree that the claim to a majority by the N.U.B.E in 1960 has been established; the Bank states now, in 1962, that the N.U.B.E has 1,565 members and the Association 2,012. It is clear from the evidence that in or about 1960 the Staff Association embarked upon a recruitment campaign which must, to some extent, have improved its relative position. It would seem, at a cautious estimate, that the N.U.B.E still has a substantial minority membership and that in 1960 there was more or less parity between the N.U.B.E and the Staff Association.
6. 235. In the case of Martins Bank the position seems to be somewhat similar. The N.U.B.E claims 43 per cent of the staff against 49 per cent belonging to the Staff Association and claims to have had a majority in 1960. The Bank says only that, so far as it is aware, the membership of the Staff Association has never been less than that of the N.U.B.E. The statements of the Association contain nothing to disprove a general impression that the N.U.B.E membership now is not much less than that of the Association or that something like parity existed in or about 1960.
7. 236. In the case of the National Provincial Bank the position of the N.U.B.E is weaker. It does appear that the Association has about 60 per cent of the staff as members against the 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the N.U.B.E. If the trend in this Bank as the result of the Association's 1960 campaign was similar to that in the other banks, the N.U.B.E's proportion in 1960 was possibly a little larger than now.
8. 237. In the case of the Yorkshire Bank, the N.U.B.E claims even now 592 of the 1,200 staff as members-practically 50 per cent. This figure has not been refuted. Allowing for the non-organisation of a proportion of the staff similar to that in the other cases, it would seem that the N.U.B.E has now a majority compared with the Staff Association, despite the latter's 1960 campaign.
9. 238. This is a case in which the Government of the United Kingdom has, by ratifying the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1959 (No. 98), assumed a clear international obligation to ensure the effective application of the provisions of that Convention in the United Kingdom.
10. 239. The Articles of the Convention which are most directly related to the allegations made in this case are Articles 2, 3 and 4, which read as follows:
    • Article 2
11. 1. Workers' and employers' organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration.
12. 2. In particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organisations under the domination of employers or employers' organisations, or to support workers' organisations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers' organisations, shall be deemed to constitute acts of interference within the meaning of this Article.
    • Article 3
    • Machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise as defined in the preceding articles.
    • Article 4
    • Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.
13. 240. The case nevertheless presents certain difficulties. The question of the exact scope of the obligations assumed as a result of the ratification of the said Convention is one which calls for particularly careful consideration. The facts themselves are extremely intricate and, for the most part, the concrete evidence adduced by the complainant is in conflict with that adduced by the banks and bank staff associations concerned. This is particularly true in regard to the question, which may be of crucial importance, of how far the staff associations are genuinely representative in character. The Committee does not feel that the facts now before it are sufficiently clear and final to afford it a sufficiently sure basis on which to formulate firm conclusions or for resolving whatever questions of law might arise on the basis of such further facts as might be ascertained.
14. 241. The Committee, therefore, considers that the next step which should be taken in dealing with this case is to assemble a fuller body of, as far as possible, agreed facts and then to see what facts still remain in dispute and how far the elucidation of the facts affords a basis for an agreed settlement. This could be done by means of either an international or a national procedure. There are clearly certain advantages in such elucidation of the factual situation being effected by a national procedure, if that is feasible. In this connection the Committee observes that, on various occasions in the past, there have been negotiations between certain of the parties in the case, at times with the assistance of the Ministry of Labour, which appeared, at some stages, to have presented some prospect of affording, but did not in the result afford, an agreed basis of settlement. In these circumstances the Committee considers that it would be preferable that the Government, being under the obligation to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are fully implemented, should undertake the responsibility for arranging for an impartial, full, and prompt inquiry and for endeavouring to promote an agreed settlement on the basis of such an inquiry.
15. 242. Having regard to the foregoing circumstances the Committee has decided to adjourn its examination of the case until the 155th Session of the Governing Body in order to afford the Government an opportunity of indicating whether it is in a position to accept the recommendation that there should be an inquiry followed by an attempt to promote further negotiations towards an agreed settlement. If the Government were to accept this recommendation, the Committee would then propose that its further consideration of the case should be left in abeyance for a reasonable period in order to enable the inquiry and subsequent negotiation to be completed. If for any reason this recommendation should not be acceptable to the Government, the Committee would resume its examination of the case at its session in May 1963.