MUSING A MANUFACTURING MERGER

Protagonists talk of forming "a dynamic, fully resourced union to be proud of", while opponents fear a lack of lay power and sidelining of the service sectors. MSF delegates this month debate merging with the AEEU.

The largest union merger since the formation of public services union UNISON could get the green light this month.

The annual delegate conference of the conglomerate union Manufacturing Science Finance (MSF), which has 400,000 members, will this month decide whether to press ahead with plans to merge with the AEEU engineers' and electricians' union. The AEEU, with 720,000 members, is currently the third largest British-based union, while MSF is the fifth largest.

If all goes to plan, a new union of over a million members, annual income of £60 million and assets of over £100 million will come into being, in various stages, by January 2003 (see box 1).

However, the go-ahead by MSF delegates is not a certainty. The initial, or "prioritising" agenda for the conference contained 12 branch motions firmly against the plans and four in favour. In the later "preliminary" agenda, after motions have been through a process of selection by regional bodies, the motions are more evenly matched.

The industrial logic for the merger is the fact that the majority of the AEEU's members and half of the MSF's membership work in manufacturing industry. Roger Lyons, MSF general secretary, said: "British industry can only succeed through efficient partnerships between employers and trade unions. The formation of one giant union for manufacturing would give partnership in Britain the boost it needs."

Members often work together, for example in motor and aerospace plants and general manufacturing (see box 2). MSF's bulletin for workplace reps quotes Dave Parr, a senior British Aerospace rep, as saying: "We MSF members at British Aerospace in Brough work closely with our colleagues, many of them AEEU members.a new union formed by MSF and AEEU has to be the right thing to do."

But the union leaders, particularly in MSF in which more than half of members work in the service sector, are at pains to show that the planned merger will not only benefit its industrial members. In fact the MSF reps bulletin says that "public sector sections like NHS, education and the voluntary sector, will benefit most from our enhanced resources, influence and credibility." They are due to receive a minimum level of resourcing however small they are.

And an 11-point charter setting out the vision of the two unions' general secretaries also emphasises the more general benefits of merging the unions' resources, particularly those relating to recruitment and organisation.

For example, the charter promises £4.2 million to Lifelong Learning and training in the first year, over £1 million for organising in the new union's first year and a "strategic approach" to recruiting new members and gaining recognition. MSF's reps' bulletin says that "the new union aims to be the union of the future, recruiting and organising those employees in the hi-tech, service and out-sourced agency sectors that have yet to organise, but who are often the least protected."

This chimes with MSF's "Organising Works" strategy which, as long ago as 1996, made recruitment and organisation the union's top priority. The union has subsequently appointed a number of specific organisers.

The approach also fits in with the AEEU's current emphasis on "the three Rs" - recognition, recruitment and retention. At the beginning of 1999 the union reorganised its internal resources to put the emphasis on recruitment of new members and retaining them by ensuring they were properly serviced. It has since been active in signing recognition deals, aided by the impending legislation.

But there is concern among MSF's lay ranks about the future industrial balance of the membership. Dave Hutchinson, president of the union's Yorkshire and Humberside Region, said some members had already been concerned that manufacturing and engineering members constituted more than 50% of the total when MSF was formed from the largely white-collar union ASTMS and manufacturing union TASS.

"A merger with the AEEU would see this figure rise to more than 80%. Any semblance of a white-collar union would disappear altogether. This would severely damage our recruitment potential in health, education, the voluntary sector, finance etc," he told Labour Research.

But the two union leaders emphasise that the new union would maintain the relative independence currently enjoyed by a range of semi-autonomous groups within MSF. These groups are largely the result of previous amalgamation activity in which MSF acquired a range of small unions, notably in health, finance, chemicals and engineering.

The "instrument of amalgamation" - the legal document which sets out the key principles of the new union - guarantees that the industrial, professional and sector autonomy of all MSF groups will be preserved.

The promises on autonomy have been enough to convince head-office-based leaders of MSF's autonomous groups. Jackie Carnell, director of the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association section, acknowledged that there had been initial concern among her members of being part of such a large union which was predominantly manufacturing after receiving a high level of autonomy within MSF.

But she was happy with assurances of professional autonomy, "probably a seat on the council" and retention of the section's non-Labour-Party-affiliated political fund. And she told Labour Research that "members are delighted that the new union will be organised on industrial grounds and that there will be an NHS sector. If we have an autonomous group within the NHS sector we will actually be better and stronger."

But this also has its opponents. Mick Elliott, president of the union's Eastern Region, for example, does not want to see the new union divided into industrial groups for national executive and other purposes even though he has worked in manufacturing for 40 years (he currently works for Marconi).

"In MSF we have always said sectoral means sectarian, but this is what is planned and it would be very divisive." Last year's delegate conference opposed plans for any "rigid industry-based structure".

There is also concern among some MSF activists about other aspects of the planned structure of the new union, saying it does not represent the lay-led tradition of MSF. According to Hutchinson: "The cultural differences between MSF and AEEU are enormous. .. MSF has very active and vocal regional and branch structures. These would almost certainly disappear or change radically."

The issue of whether the branches of the new union will have significant financial resources - and freedom to spend it - as in MSF or will follow the more financially restricted model of the AEEU will not be resolved until a new rulebook is drawn up between 2001 and 2003. It will also not be clear whether the policy-making delegate conference will be annual, as it is currently in MSF, or biennial as in the AEEU.

But in a motion to MSF's conference, the national executive council argues that "once the new union comes into being, the new rule book will be the responsibility of a lay member committee.to prepare and present proposed rules to a joint delegate conference of 800 delegates drawn equally from both sections in 2003".

The union's Scottish secretary, John Macintyre, however, hopes things won't get as far as that at this stage. He is not against the merger in principle - "I don't have a problem with it. I've worked with AEEU stewards for years. The argument as far as I'm concerned is the speed at which it is taking place and the lack of consultation." This is also a major concern of other senior regional figures.

But the leadership will be arguing that time is not on the union's side. The union's national president, Frank Barry, warns that "to stay as we are is not an option. We will stagnate and become an insignificant player in the new developing industries. And we will be unable to support our members with the resources they are constantly demanding to pursue workplace issues."

It is sure to be a heated debate.

Box 1: Timetable for merger

MSF conference delegates will vote this month, and if the vote is in favour both unions will ballot their memberships.

Phase One of the merger (due to start 1 January 2001) will establish two sections operating under current rules but with a bridging joint executive committee (as well as their own executives), which "will be responsible for the general management of the union". It will be made up of equal numbers from each union.

Between 2001 and 2003 a lay member rules commission of around 20 will draft a new rulebook for presentation to a joint delegate conference in 2003.

Phase two - the new union - will "take full shape" from 2004 onwards.

Box 2: Where MSF and AEEU members work

MSF (paying members)

Service sector

Health service 55,866

Finance and insurance 52,602

Voluntary sector 14,968

Education (incl. universities) 14,160

Heating and ventilating 11,954

Civil aviation and transport 3,742

Other services 14,389

(Total service 167,681)

Manufacturing sector

Electrical and electronic 35,755

Aerospace 23,056

Vehicles 15,906

Chemicals, oil, rubber, etc. 15,757

Food, drink and tobacco 9,446

Other manufacturing 15,877

(Total manufacturing 115,797)

Miscellaneous (including self employed) 43,225

AEEU

General (mostly manufacturing) 194,480

Construction 50,420

Motor components 48,260

Aerospace 38,176

Energy 36,015

Motor vehicles 33,134

Metals 18,007

Chemicals 17,287

Transport 15,846

Food and drink 14,406

Health service 13,686

Government departments 13,686

Local authorities 12,965

Foundry 10,804

Servicing 10,084