Birmingham Trade Union Resource Centre

This is the heart of the collection, as it contains records of the original research and information service established in 1982, and also those of the holding company created in 1986, to co-ordinate the specialist subsidiaries of Publishing, Print and Video set up at that time. From 1989 the joint management arrangements for TURC and YETRU are also recorded here, as are post 1992 details, when TURC reverted to a research and information service, with closure of YETRU and the specialist subsidiaries.

A wide range of material is contained, including minutes and related papers, financial and operational records, correspondence between TURC and a wide range of parties, as well as publications produced by TURC and by other organisations.

These records offer a comprehensive insight into the motivation behind the establishment of TURC, and its development over time. The social, economic and political landscape in which it was placed is shown, as are the often intricate relationships which key members of TURC had with various elements of the labour movement, and the tensions that arose. Individuals with differing political [but socialist] affiliations were involved, sometimes in a personal capacity, but sometimes as representatives of the Labour Party or other socialist political organisations, individual trades unions, Birmingham Trades Council and the Trades Union Congress. Campaigning groups on a range of topics were also involved.

The organisational role of TURC is more apparent in the minutes and finances, and the campaigning role is more readily identified in the correspondence and publications sections - but this is not a hard and fast rule.

The central element is the TURC Management Committee [from 1989 a combined TURC / YETRU Management Committee]. This was the governing body for TURC, to which staff were accountable. It set policy and authorized expenditure. It also served as the Board of Directors, under company law. The composition of the Management Committee reflected the origins of TURC as a labour movement body, funded by local authorities. From 1982, Management Committee members were nominated by the BTC, with positions reserved for the WMCC [as funder] and the West Midlands Regional TUC. This latter provision was intended to allay fears by the TUC that TURC would operate outside of the conventional trades union structures. However, the offer was never taken up, the TUC Council preventing the Regional TUC from becoming involved.

Over time, the Management Committee's composition altered slightly but the main pattern of trades union involvement, channelled primarily through the BTUC remained, along with representation of the funders. The relationship between TURC and BTUC whilst close was sometimes turbulent, and as the main link between the two, the Management Committee both experienced and contributed to tensions. In addition to the normal industrial relations issues between the Management Committee and the Centre staff, there were fundamental differences between how the BTC and TURC staff viewed what legitimate workloads should be. Formal lines of authority from the BTC Executive Council, via the TURC Management Committee and Centre co-ordinator to staff did not always sit well with a workforce used to exercising initiative, and operating in an environment where direct, independent action was increasingly valued. Tensions arose between TURC and individual trades union hierarchies, where TURC's emphasis on providing information and support services to grass roots trades unionists was viewed as potentially compromising the negotiating positions of paid union officials.

This standpoint was not universal with trades unions, and over time TURC gained and retained support from many union branches. There remained however a clear distinction between the BTC view of TURC as an [arms length] agent of BTC policy and TURC staff's attempts to retain a capacity for independent decision making. Such tensions surfaced throughout the Centre's existence, over issues such as the BTC desire to relocate TURC into a single Trades Council operation at Digbeth Civic Hall, and the requirement that TURC produce the BTC journal, which had previously been produced separately. This latter issue brought the relationship between TURC and TURN into sharp focus, as some members of the BTC Executive Council regarded TURN as a "front" for TURC staff seeking to follow an independent line.

A further factor was the funder's representation on the Management Committee, as BCC increasingly sought to direct the activities of TURC through Service Level Agreements for specified research and information services, and divestment of the specialist subsidiaries of Publishing, Print and Video. This aspect brought to the fore the inter-related nature of the local labour movement, with Michael Joseph [Mick] Rice serving simultaneously as Secretary of BTC, Chair of TURC Management Committee and Vice Chair of BCC Economic Development Committee.

The worsening funding situation and the enforced restructuring brought to the fore the Management Committee's role as employer, as negotiations with staff trades unions moved away from salary issues and terms and conditions towards redundancy.

There were also internal tensions between staff members. The Trades Council's decision to merge its management responsibilities for TURC and YETRU in 1989 caused local difficulties, as teams that had previously regarded themselves as distinct, though co-located units now operated much more closely as a single unit.