ENG-1947 — Page 28

type of worker, had already mooted the question. Their approach, however, was somewhat unrealistic in that it was too general in its scope to form a basis for negotiations which might have led to a settlement. The Institute's demand was for 150% increase in basic wages for all skilled mechanics. This demand took no account of the fact that the Institute claimed to represent no less than 13 skilled trades in Utility Companies, Dockyards, and Government Departments. In each of these there were differences in pay-scales. Furthermore, during 1946, most of the employers, as has previously been mentioned, had negotiated settlements with their employees as a whole. Any concession to one type of worker, therefore, would be bound to have repercussions on the other employees. Possibly stimulated by the Institute's demand, other unions, representing the majority of the workers in the utilities and dockyards, visited the Labour Office during April to demand, as against the Institute's request for an increase in basic wages, an increase in the rate of the rehabilita- tion allowance which had been payable since the war. Efforts to persuade them to submit reliable detailed information on living costs were unsuccessful. The Chinese Engineers' Institute continued to press their alternative demand for an increase of basic wages. All the employers who were likely to be affected were consulted, but found themselves unable to accept the demand in the form in which it was being put forward, and the Institute was so informed. After a lapse of two months, from May to July, the Institute again put forward its demand, materially unchanged, but with the threat of strike action if it was not granted. The Labour Office again consulted the managements concerned but, since the conditions were unaltered no advance could be made. In addition to the difficulty of negotiating on the basis of the Institute's blanket demands the situation was confused by doubts whether the Institute was still representative of the bulk of skilled workers or whether its place had been taken by the various industrial unions which had grown up in

up in individual companies. These doubts were strengthened by the attitude and statements of the industrial unions which were opposed to the Institute, and were unwilling to co-operate with it in joint negotiations. There was in fact considerable inter-union rivalry, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Institute's policy was to some extent moulded by tactical expediency in this field. The Labour Office tried to locate the chief sources of dissatisfaction with a view to confining negotiations within the limits of individual industries. The Dockyards were indicated as being primarily concerned, and an attempt was made to secure an agreement by means of joint negotiating machinery on which both the Institute and the Dockyard industrial unions were represented. This attempt was unsuccessful and on the 16th August the Institute called a strike of all its members. The result of this call apparently substantiated the Institute's claim to represent skilled mechanics in the Dockyards, Government Services, the Green Island Cement Company and the Wharf Companies, since

16