2. Estudio de Mercado
3.4. Ingeniería del proyecto
3.4.1. Características de los servicios que ofrece la cooperativa
Types of Steward
The significant development in steward representation amongst local authority manual workers in the 1970s was fully apparent in
Hackney. In .1977 there had been just ten NUPE stewards within the
Borough; by March 1980, when detailed research commenced, the number of NUPE stewards had increased to thirty-five, with a total of sixty manual stewards throughout the authority. This growth continued in the following eighteen months with fifty-two NUTE stewards alone in
existence on a return visit at the end of 1981. Emphasis on steward
numbers, however, tends to disguise the very different types of steward on the basis of criteria determining steward constituencies.
Four specific entities were identified as having formed the basis of representation in Hackney;„ the establishment, the depot, the area office and the authority itself. Stewards could and, in many instances, did represent all workers carrying out their work task either within or
from these entities. It was, however, the range of competing occupational,
organizational and functional groupings found within these different structures which provided the major opportunity for development.
Initially stewards would tend to represent all workers within an entity. As representation developed,more refined constituencies emerged based upon certain groups within those entities. Table 4.3 below provides some indication of the steward types found.
PATTERNS OF STEWARD ORGANIZATION Types of Steward
The significant development in steward representation amongst local authority manual workers in the 1970s was fully apparent in Hackney. In 1977 there had been just ten NUPE stewards within the Rorough; by March 1980, when detailed research commenced, the number of NUPE stewards had increased to thirty-five, with a total of sixty manual stewards throughout the authority. This growth continued in the following eighteen months with fifty-two NUPE stewards alone in
existence on a return visit at the end of 1981. Emphasis on steward
numbers, however, tends to disguise the very different types of steward on the basis of criteria determining steward constituencies.
Four specific entities were identified as having formed the basis of representation in Hackney;, the establishment, the depot, the area office and the authority itself. Stewards could and, in many instances, did represent all workers carrying out their work task either within or
from these entities. It was, however, the range of competing occupational,
organizational and functional groupings found within these different structures which provided the major opportunity for development.
Initially stewards would tend to represent all workers within an entity. As representation developed,more refined constituencies emerged based upon certain groups within those entities. Table 4.3 below provides some indication of the steward types found.
Table 4.3 Hackney Steward Types
Member Characteristics
Entity Group
Establishment (a) multi occupation static workers
(b) occupational group
Depot (a) occupational group
(b) sectional group
--- mobile workers
(c) union group
Area/District (a ) single occupation --- scattered/isolated workers
Office
Authority (a ) isolated individuals
by section
(b) occupation --- --- scattered/isolated workers
The establishment*3 ^ formed an important basis of steward
representation for a broad range of occupational groups within the Hackney
manual workforce. For the two occupational groups working within the old
people's home, domestics and care assistants, representation was based
solely upon this structure. Individual OPHs usually had one steward
covering both groups of workers. The contrast in the pattern of represent ation between the old Stoke Newington Town Hall, where the Finance
Directorate was located, and the main Hackney Town Hall, provided an interesting example of how representation could develop on the basis of
occupation. Both of these town halls employed porters, cleaners and
canteen workers but, whilst in Stoke Newington Town Hall, one steward represented all three of these groups, in Hackney Town Hall an individual steward had emerged for each qroup.
For other establishment workers, particularly those within baths, libraries, children's homes and nurseries, the pattern of representation was not as easily categorized. There appeared to be an interesting discrepancy between the constituencies designated to stewards by their branches within these establishments and the constituencies they could
effectively service. Thus individual stewards were found within particular baths, libraries and children's homes. They had been elected within their place of work, saw themselves as establishment stewards and operated primarily as such. However, in a number of cases these stewards were formally deemed to represent much more broadly based
constituencies. Further consideration is given to such stewards below.
At present, it would be a mistake to regard their constituencies as being unconditionally based upon the establishment.
The pattern of representation amongst depot workers such as refuse workers, road sweepers and highway workers, was rather more
complex than in establishments. It was complicated by the existence
of the section and the union which could form the basis of representation. Three of the five depots considered were single section depots and single
(4 )
unions tended to dominate many of the depots to the exclusion of others .
Yet in the remaining two depots interesting developments in representation had taken place.
A symmetrical pattern of representation was apparent within Hackney's
five depots sixteen months prior to the commencement of research. Each
depot had just one steward who represented all workers regardless of
occupational or sectional group. In the intervening sixteen months
stewards, representing particular occupational groups within depots such as refuse workers or rondsweepers, had not emerged. This severely limited the scope for development in single section depots. However, new stewards have arisen during this time based upon union and sectional groupings.
The dominance of particular unions within depots was gradually being undermined by two processes. The first was the influx of workers
from other boroughs or spheres of employments already holding membership from other unions. The second was the internal transfer of workers between
depots as a consequence of a recent local agreement. In at least one
depot, a NUPE steward had arisen alongside the established TGWU steward
to represent his own union members. In the two multi-section depots,
the section had been seized upon as a basis of representation. In both depots separate highways and cleansing section stewards had been elected. The situation in one of these depots was in fact further complicated in as much as multi-unionism within the highways section had also produced
two union grouping stewards
^\
Classification of parks stewards was rather more difficult than for
other groups of workers. Depending upon the specific types of parks
workers being considered, stewards might be regarded as either establishment
or depot stewards. Static parks workers related to their parks very much
as they would to any establishment. In contrast, mobile parks workers,
who had to work on a number of sites, related to the park very much as a depot, picking up their tools and returning to it daily. Since represent ation for most parks workers was based upon the park, the stewards usually represented both static and mobile workers operating within and from the same park.
Those workers who were most scattered and isolated throughout the authority, such as lion«? helps and estate cleaners, were represented by area or district office stewards. Such stewards had constituencies composed of the exact number of workers attached to particular offices.
These constituencies proved particularly difficult to service. Unlike
depot workers, office based workers very rarely returned to this central
this had been rendered unnecessary by the move to payment by cheque rather than cash. Amongst estate cleaners, some interesting developments in representation had taken place to compensate for the difficulties in
servicing members. For example, in a number of districts two stewards
were to be found effectively representing the same members. The second steward had been expressly elected to help the former steward to manage the constituency.
The final entity upon which representation was based, and one which
proved to be particularly important, was the authority itself. In
contrast to the other structures upon which representation had been based, which were mutually exclusive, the authority was an additional and
complementary structure. A number of different circumstances gave rise to the need for stewards to represent a particular grouping of workers throughout the authority. For certain workers it was simply not possible
to elect stewards within lower level entities. In toilets and luncheon
clubs, for example, the largest number of workers employed at any given time was only two. Some basis for representation beyond the establishment clearly had to be found for these workers and the authority was considered
viable. Inability to elect stewards also sprang from the rather unusual
geographical pattern of union membership previously referred to. With
particular unions dominating specific areas of the authority, the
isolated worker not in that union found himself without a steward. For
parks workers, two authority level stewards, a TOWU and NUPE steward, existed solely to represent such scattered and isolated union members within parks.
In many instances an inability to elect stewards based upon lower level entities combined with an unwillingness to do so. This appeared
to be the case with the baths, libraries and children's homes workers
already referred to. Some of these entities were too small to elect
stewards but the existence of just four stewards for eight baths, eighteen libraries and thirty-*five children's homes could only be explained by a degree of member apathy. Authority stewards had as a consequence been appointed by branches; two baths stewards representing their respective union groupings throughout the authority, plus a single authority library and a single authority children's homes steward. The resultant
discrepancy between the stewards' formal responsibilities and their operational activities has already been noted. This type of 'authority
steward' might perhaps be regarded as a 'quasi steward'. Nevertheless,
it is interesting to note that the whole authority was considered a viable basis for a steward constituency*6 ^.
It was possible to build-up a dynamic picture of the development of steward representation in Hackney and such a picture was further
enriched by the return visit to the authority. Whilst the initial
development of representation as described above had been related to a refinement of constituencies on the basis of grouping, the increase in the number of stewards apparent after the eighteen month interval reflected a refinement on the basis of entity. The emergence of a greater number of stewards at this later date primarily derived from a greater exploitation of the establishment as a basis for constituencies. It was a development which slightly undermined the coverage of authority wide stewards. For example, a greater number of stewards representing individual children's homes, baths, libraries and parks were in evidence. Yet the continued inability and unwillingness of certain workers to elect stewards necessitated the retention of authority stewards acting very much as a 'safety net*.
Analysis of steward representation, therefore, suggests the importance of three mutually exclusive entities as the basis of represent ation for different groups of workers. The fourth,, the authority, had clearly come to constitute a very important additional entity particularly for those workers unwilling or unable to elect their own steward. Whilst the coverage of such authority stewards might be undermined as more
establishment stewards emerged, their imjwrtance remained. It was also
apparent that groupings within entities provided opportunities for further developments in representation. Thus particular steward types were liable to be more significant at different states in the development
of representation. In the early stages the entity alone provided the
basis for steward constituencies; the establishment and depot regardless
of groupings within. In time, particular groupings within entities such
as occupation, section and union, were exploited to refine constituencies.
Types of Steward Organization
The outstanding features of steward organization within Hackney was its sophistication at the level of the authority. All formal steward bodies were based firmly upon the authority rather than upon lower level entities such as establishments and depots, and therefore covered the whole of the borough. A considerable number of these bodies allowed only stewards from certain groups to participate within them, for example,
stewards from one union or directorate across the authority. What was
significant, however, was the existence in Hackney of 'umbrella* structures. These bodies were open to all stewards regardless of group within the authority and thereby facilitated the integration of stewards into a unified authority level organization.
internetion between stewards. The discussion will then turn to consider steward interaction within bodies restricted to stewards from specific groups. In particular, union bodies will be looked at such as branches, branch and steward committees, and the Joint Negotiating Committees at
directorate level. Finally, those structures mitigating the divisive
and fragmentary influence of 'group specific' organization and enabling the reintegration of stewards into a unified body will be considered. These integrative bodies included the Joint works Committee and the Joint Shop Stewards Committee.
Informal interaction between stewards either in the form of networks of contact or of a more organized kind through irregular ad hoc meetings was very limited within Hackney. The opportunities for this
type of contact were not great. In many entities - OPHs, Area Offices
and certain depots - one ste.ward alone was to be found. For such
isolated stewards attempts to maintain some form of informal contact therefore necessitated making conscious efforts to reach other stewards in different parts of the authority. Such attempts were not unknown. The two baths stewards were in telephone contact with one another to discuss common problems, whilst an experienced OPH steward was in contact with a newly elected steward to provide some support. These instances were, however, rare and certainly it was not possible to identify tangled and complex networks of contact which ran, for example, across section, division or directorate.
If a network of contact could be identified, it largely revolved around branch officers; the NUPE Branch Secretary and the TGIVU Branch Chairman. These figures corresponded closely to Terry's 'key stewards'
officially recognize such a post but in effect they were prepared to allow these stewards to spend all of their working time on union work. Vigorous efforts were made by the two branch officers to maintain contact with stewards. This was achieved partly through their mobility across the authority but also through their accessibility, at a particular
place and time. Both the NUPE and TGIVU branch officers were present
in the foyer of the Town Hall every morning and stewards very often made special journeys to seek their advice and help.
The importance of these key figures stemmed to a significant
extent from their access to senior levels of management. It was not
solely or even primarily a matter of such council officers encouraging access or feeling that such contact was in some way beneficial to the achievement of certain of their aims. These union representatives had the time and had been able to establish informal relationships with senior officers and they invariably knew where to go in the complex
management hierarchy to settle problems quickly. If an attempt were to
be made to draw an analogy depicting Hackney’s network of contact it might be with a wheel. The branch officers tended to represent the hub, their stewards having straight lines of contact with them, but having very little contact with fellow stewards.
Informal contact of a more organized kind was in greater evidence,
although it was not particularly extensive. Issues could arise within
depots which needed to be discussed between stewards with members there. For example, a working party had been set up in one depot which included the two depot stewards and lower line officers, to discuss depot
facilities. At the higher level of the authority home help stewards had on occasion come together to discuss protective clothing. The major
99.
impetus tor ad hoc meetings was the discussion of bonus. Three parks stewards had, for instance, been meeting with council officers to negotiate a bonus scheme and these stewards, in turn, had been reporting back to larger meetings of all parks stewards. The highway stewards had similarly met on their own initiative to discuss problems with their
scheme and to explore the possibility of renegotiating it. Yet it is
important to re-emphasize that such meetings were not regular and did not involve a great number of the authority's stewards.
Figure 4.5 illustrates the range of formal bodies which, in the absence of extensive informal contact, had come to structure steward organization within Hackney. Three distinct forms of interaction can be identified from the figure. The first form involved all stewards in the authority from one union and could be labelled 'authority-union' interaction. The second involved stewards from across the authority from within a specific directorate. This will be referred to as 'authority- directorate' interaction. The third form involved stewards from throughout
the authority regardless of their group. In practice then, this was an
'open' form of interaction. Consideration is given below to each of these different kinds of steward interaction.
The 'authority orientated' nature of Hackney's branches was noted in the introduction to this case study and this was particularly important in that branch structures therefore embraced all workers and stewards across the whole of the authority and few workers from outside. Two structures were identified within which 'authority-union' interaction could take place, branch meetings and steward committee meetings. Any presumption that branches, in corresponding closely to the authority, might produce well attended and dynamic branch meetings quickly had to be
Formal Steward Interaction
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Grouping Formal Structures
Union Side JWC Authority
Authority Directorate
full meeting (3 reps per union)
pre meeting (3 reps per union)
agenda meeting (3 reps per union) full meeting (3 reps per union)
Union Side
(representatives from NUPE, TGWU, GMWU, AUEW, UCAATT & EETPU)
qualified. Focusing primarily upon NUPE and the TGWU, average branch
attendances were 18 and 10 respectively*^'. Only at the meetings of
the TGWU branch did a significant proportion of the steward body
appear. Indeed, seven or eight TGWU stewards, about half the union's
total steward body, were regularly present. The NUPE branch meeting was particularly important in that stewards were elected and often
designated constituencies at such meetings. However, of the three