\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0extn. 2921<\/em><\/p>\n Dear Nina, (1)<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Thank you for coming to see me yesterday. Sorry I was too busy to have a proper chat.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Further to the enclosed letter, I would just like to re-stress the point made during my recent interview, that neither I, nor any member of my Camera Crew, withdrew their labour during last November\u2019s Inter-Management (2) dispute. Our absence from work during this period was entirely the result of being \u201ctaken off the payroll\u201d by deliberate B.B.C. policy.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The details of the case are as follows: –<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0On Tuesday 20th November, at 16.30 p.m., we were working on \u201cCrackerjack\u201d at Television Theatre \u2013 when a Union Representative (3) asked us to withdraw our labour. We objected to this on the grounds that a live audience, mostly children, were travelling to see the show. It would be too late to cancel them now, and they would be bitterly disappointed. We persuaded the Union to consider this as a \u201cSpecial Case\u201d and allow us to work normally as a \u201cGood Will Gesture\u201d. I understand that the Video-Tape Department at Television Centre did not record the programme \u2013 but this did not affect the work of the Camera and Sound Crews at Television Theatre. We worked normally both during the show and the derig that followed. (I calculate, from your figures, however, that you do not intend to pay us for that period.)<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The following Friday we reported for duty as usual, at the Greenwood Theatre. We had been on duty for about a quarter of an hour, when a VISION Manager (4) informed us that our Goodwill Gesture was to be repaid with summary dismissal. (One might have been less offended had a Manager from our own section conveyed the news.)<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0He read a set speech to the effect that we had withdrawn our labour (which was a fib) and that we were consequently deemed to be in breach of contract, (Please forward that part of my contract which says that I must NOT work normally) the B.B.C., therefore, demanded assurances from myself and my Union (A second fib. In fact we were neither asked for, nor given any opportunity, to give any such assurances) (5) and that we had been taken off the payroll three days previously (i.e. our sacking had been back-dated to 16.30 on the Tuesday. Curiously, a CAMERA Manager (6), who had been with us at the time, had not been aware of this. Obviously we would not have turned up on the Friday had we known that we had already been locked-out for three days. Equally obviously, the fact that a Manager was waiting for us, with a list of our names, indicates that we were expected to turn up).<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0When we pointed out that we had not withdrawn our labour, he simply read out the whole set speech again. Unlike the Union Representative, he seemed to have no authority to make any decision. (In some organisations, decision-making is a fundamental requirement of Management. In the B.B.C. it is evidently frowned upon.)<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0When we explained that we were quite willing to continue working normally (We would have ignored the Management\u2019s lock-out instruction, just as we had successfully avoided the Union\u2019s strike instruction.) he told us that the production had already been cancelled by the Management \u2013 even though they knew that we would be reporting for normal duty. (He also told us that there was no food in the canteen, which was a third fib. The breakfast was very nice!)<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0I realise, of course, that the whole incident could be a brilliant piece of biting satire \u2013 suggesting, perhaps, that Crew 6 working normally are indistinguishable from anyone else being on strike! If so, I would hate you to think that I don\u2019t enjoy a joke at my own expense (Ho, jolly, ho.) However, I suspect that the humour was unintentional, and that the whole situation is just one of those pieces of B.B.C. bureaucratic buffoonery that we have all grown to know and love.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0During the days that followed Crew 6 remained ready and available for work, but 6 of our scheduled programmes were cancelled due to the Management\u2019s lock-out policy. If this ratio is typical of the 19 crews, it means that a maximum of 19 programmes could have been sunk by Union action, and about 114 programmes were scuttled by Management reaction. Assuming that the Management\u2019s sole purpose in life is the disruption and prevention of programme-making, one has to credit them with an impressive score! (It all seems to prove my belief that there is a Trotskyite cell in Central Management. Certainly, with a bureaucracy like this, we don\u2019t need a militant Union. They brought Television Centre to a standstill far more effectively that Arthur Scargill and a few thousand flying pickets could have done. Is there really a Red under the Bett?) (7)<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0I hope I have described the situation in a style befitting its silliness.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Best Wishes,<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Roger Bunce.<\/em><\/p>\n ——————————————<\/p>\n Notes:<\/p>\n 1: Our friendly and popular Personnel Officer, Nina Shields.<\/p>\n 2:\u00a0In official communications, and for purposes of official irritation, I always insisted on referring to the \u201cInter-Management\u201d dispute, since the Technical Managers were in dispute with other layers of Management. At the time, many industries were plagued by Inter-Union disputes. The BBC was perhaps unique in being brought to a halt by an Inter-Management dispute.<\/p>\n 3: Dave Mutton – the award-winning Senior Cameraman of Crew 14.<\/p>\n 4: Bill Poole.<\/p>\n 5: The pretence was that we had failed to give an undertaking to \u201cwork normally\u201d in future. Had such an assurance actually been asked for, we would happily have signed up to it. My definition of \u201cworking normally\u201d would include any participation in legitimate industrial action. And, in maths, \u201cnormal\u201d means at right-angles. Since Cameramen work standing-up, they always work normally!<\/p>\n 6: I can\u2019t remember who this was, but evidently one of the Camera Managers was keeping an eye on us during the \u201cCrackerjack\u201d production. I\u2019d like to believe that no Camera Manager was willing to perform the actual sacking, because they had too much integrity!<\/p>\n 7:\u00a0\u201cthe Bett\u201d is a reference to Michael Bett, the BBC\u2019s Director of Personnel, 1977-81,\u00a0who bore a curious resemblance to Doctor No. He was widely credited with having provoked the dispute, and introducing the ultra-reactionary lock-out policy. One of those career bureaucrats who never stayed in any one organisation for too long, he is alleged to have caused a trail of similar disputes wherever he went. He would become Sir Michael Bett C.B.E<\/p>\n In August 1980, after threats of legal action, both from individuals and from the Union, the Management relented. The pay deducted from the \u201cBlue Peter\u201d and \u201cCrackerjack\u201d crews was refunded. A couple of surviving memos show that they even managed to cock that up! Michael Bett left the B.B.C. the following year.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Roger remembers……. Remember the T.M.\u2019s Dispute of 1979? I\u2019ve forgotten what the issues were, but the Union backed the T.M.s, so we all became involved. I recall producing cardboard lapel badges with logos like, \u201cSupport Your Local T.M.\u201d, etc. It … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/tech-ops.co.uk\/next\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/ianfootersmall.jpg\" "\\"ianfootersmall\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n