Jessen & Richter (Eds.) (49 page)

W O R K S C O U N C I L E L E C T I O N S I N C Z E C H O S L O V A K I A 187

lion members.4 Afterwards, while newspapers and trade union journals

were rejoicing at the new era of “democracy in the factories” agitators,

instructors and cadre specialists from the trade unions and district trade

union councils set off for the factories in flocks.5

Touching on the subject in a cursory manner, one would not think that

works council elections facilitated the formation of authentic workers’

interests. Firstly, since the Communist take-over in February 1948, candi-

dates used to be nominated by the factory cells of the Communist Party of

Czechoslovakia (KSČ) according to a Party’s instruction.6 Secondly, after

1948, the Revolutionary Trade Union Movement was lacking any regular

institutional procedure to represent the workers’ cause (Heumos 2001).

Thirdly, as of 1948, elections mainly served to mobilize workers to speed

up production and step up their rate of work according to the role “trans-

mission belt” trade unions had to play in state socialism. In the Party

leadership’s view, elections achieved their object when producing self-

commitments to increase production, shock work and socialist labor com-

petition.7

Trade Union Representation on the Shop Floor

As of 1945–1946, trade union representation in the factories was initially

characterized by coexistence of works council and trade union factory

group. When the Nazi occupation regime fell apart, works councils

emerged from the underground or formed in the first days following lib-

eration. They took over production and assumed de facto control over the

entire industrial sector. Works councils linked together syndicalist demands

——————

4 Statistical overview of the development of ROH members 1945–1976. VOA, box

“ROH—statistické údaje”.

5 Out of numerous reports on organization of elections, reference shall be restricted to: Report on the election campaign and on elections of shop stewards, workshop councils and commissions of revision in heavy engineering works, June 16, 1953. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, no. 477–478.

6 When this instruction was issued could not be ascertained. Its existence is evidenced, among other things, by the minutes of the plenary meeting of the trade union general works committee of the Plzeň
Škoda Works
, October 1, 1958. Škoda archives, ROH

4/696.

7 Report of the district committee of the mine workers trade union in Zastávka on elections of trade union organizations [undated]. VOA, ÚVOS-horníci, 1959, box 89.

188

P E T E R H E U M O S

for radical democracy in the factory and for workers’ control in industry

(“The factory is ours”) with the idea of an imminent socialist transforma-

tion based on industrial self-management and strong egalitarian tendencies

(Heumos 1981). Initially, workers approved highly of the KSČ as the guar-

antor of social justice,8 and this was also reflected in the composition of

the Party’s membership. In 1946, almost half of its members came from

the working class (Maňák 1995, 28). In 1955, more than half of works

council members elected were at the same time members of the Commu-

nist Party.9

The factory groups of the highly centralized unified trade union (since

1955 referred to as ROH works committees) were set up “from above”

and only legalized in 1947 when elections were held. Together with pro-

duction committees10 established in summer 1945 they tried to exploit post-

war political enthusiasm for campaigns designed for increasing production.

By Presidential decree no. 104 of October 24, 1945 the works councils’

popular demand for participation in decision-making was refused and the

traditional “one-man rule” of works managers re-established. Moreover,

the decree provided that trade union factory groups should make up the

list of candidates for works council elections (Sbírka 1945, 231–238).

Communist Rule Facing Industrial Unrest: Works Council

Elections 1948–1953

Works council elections frequently took a tumultuous course during the

first five-year plan (1948–1953) reflecting fundamental social change and

widespread social unrest characteristic of the “founding years” of “people’s

democracy” in Czechoslovakia (Kalinová 2007). The introduction of state

socialism went hand-in-hand with excessive use of force to which the

workers were exposed to an exceptional extent (Heumos 2004), and, on

——————

8 Minutes of the constituent meeting of the Revolutionary Works Council of the
Škoda
Works
in Plzeň, May 10, 1945. Škoda archives, Plzeň 503, 45 A.

9 Evaluation of the annual meeting of members of works committees, of elections of shop stewards, workshop councils and works councils, January 13, 1955. VOA, ÚRO-Předst., box 21, no. 212/2/1.

10 This committee was set up according to a proposal by the
Bohemian-Moravian Engineering
Works
in Prague. The initiative to set up production committees lay with the factory group of the ROH. VOA, NHK, box 24, no. 69.

W O R K S C O U N C I L E L E C T I O N S I N C Z E C H O S L O V A K I A 189

the other hand, with strong opposition to increasing work intensity in

industry, stepped up even more by the outbreak of the Cold War, as a

result of which, in 1951, the Communist Party had to revoke the norms

decreed in 1950 (Heumos 2008c). In addition, workers were deprived of

most of their elementary rights which, in November 1951, called forth the

workers’ revolt in Brno (Pernes 1997), while disturbances reached their

climax in a strike movement beginning soon after the Communist coup

d’état and ending in a series of violent stoppages, riots and popular protest

in early June 1953, immediately after the currency reform (Heumos 2005).

These general aspects of industrial conflict should be taken into ac-

count as causing confrontations in works council elections, since the

sources rarely specify the exact causes or their respective weight. Thus, for

example, the “very turbulent course” of works council elections in the
Jičín
Engineering Works
in March 1949 was due to three different controversial points that led to a change of the list of candidates, while the respective

report keeps the reader guessing as to the effect of each point: by way of

pamphlets all “patriots” in the factory were urged to unite their forces “in

order to fight the communists”; one of the works council’s candidates

nominated was a worker who was a member of the KSČ, but had been a

member of a “yellow” trade union in the interwar period; during the elec-

tion meeting, a trade union official carelessly hinted at other engineering

works in the same district having “softer” norms.11

Confrontations were unavoidable when Party or trade union officials

tried to “improve” election results, for example, in Kyjov (glass factory)

and in Kolín (chemical factory); in both cases the workforce left the polling

room under protest.12 Sometimes a glance at the list of candidates was

sufficient to make people leave the polling room13—which officials would

prevent by bolting the doors.14 It was a common habit to simply stay away

——————

11 Minutes of the meeting of factory organization of the KSČ in the
Agrostroj Works
(Jičín), April 1, 1949. VOA, OS Kovo, strojírenství, box 2, fascicle 7.

12 Evaluation of the election campaign for works council elections for the presidency of the glass and ceramic workers’ trade union, [November 1951]. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box

109, no. 384d.—Report on elections in the chemical workers’ trade union, May 4, 1953.

VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, no. 478a.

13 Evaluation of annual meetings [of trade union members], elections of shop stewards, workshop councils and works councils, January 13, 1955. VOA, ÚRO-Předst., box 21, no. 212/2/1.

14 Evaluation of works council elections in the České Budějovice district on May 23, 1953.

VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, no. 478a.

190

P E T E R H E U M O S

from elections—in spring 1953, not even a tenth of the workers of the

Škoda Works
modeling department made their appearance at the shop

stewards’ election.15

On the other hand, works council elections offered ample opportunity

for bargaining. Among others, miners in the Plzeň coalfield and workers of

the
Brno Engineering Works
tried to make the most of their requested “political maturity”.16 Bargaining, however, required patience, which the workers

often lacked. Casters in the
Králův Dvůr Ironworks
threw their ballot papers away declaring that they did not intend to go to the polls as they received

an hourly wage of 20 crowns. The election officials then handed them new

ballot papers—and the casters voted for the official candidate.17

Nevertheless, in elections one could ascertain how to see conflicts

through to the end. This is true for numerous protests that stopped only

after the list of candidates had been amended in favor of workers; for ex-

ample in the
Přerov Engineering Works
18 and the
Stalingrad Ironworks
in Místek.19 It is true, too, for ubiquitous conflicts between KSČ members

and independent candidates, the so-called indifferents,20 who quite fre-

quently gained the upper hand, for instance, in the
Aero Works
in Prague, in an armaments factory in Kbely,21 in the
Leonora Glass Factory
, in the
Union
Engine Works
in České Budějovice,22 in the
ČKD StalingradEngineering Works

——————

15 Evaluation of elections of basic trade union organizations in the Plzeň district, June 12, 1953. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, no. 478a.

16 Report on the miners’ district council in Plzeň and on the
Masaryk Pit
in Zbuch, April 27, 1953. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, fascicle “Volby do ZR”.—Report on the election campaign and on elections of shop stewards, workshop councils and commissions of revision in heavy engineering plants, [June 1953]. VOA, box 140, no. 477–478.

17 Report of trade union instructor Čoban on his activities from October 20 to 27, 1951.

VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 105, no. 382.

18 Report of the organizational department of the Olomouc district trade union council on the election campaign in the Olomouc district, June 12, 1953. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, 1953, no. 478a.

19 Report on elections of trade union factory groups in the
Stalingrad Ironworks
, January 17, 1952. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 109, no. 384e.

20 Ibid.

21 Evaluation of elections of works councils for the meeting of the presidency of the Prague district trade union council, June 30, 1953. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, no. 478a.