Jessen & Richter (Eds.) (50 page)

22 Report of trade union instructor Málek on his activities from October 29 to November 2, 1951, November 3, 1951. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 105, no. 382.—Evaluation of works

council elections in the České Budějovice district, May 23, 1953. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, no. 478a.

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 191

in Prague,23 in the
Roosevelt Pit
in the Most coalfields,24 and in the
Škoda
Works
in Plzeň.25 It would be misleading to put these conflicts on a level with petty clashes. Reports on the works council elections in a
Škoda

branch in Děčín and the
Česká Lípa Railway Workshops
tell a different

story.26 In Děčín, Communist officials threatened a candidate for the

works council’s chair that he would not remain in office for long. The

enraged workforce then unanimously voted for the politically undesirable

candidate. In Česká Lípa, during a strike, workers held an “extraordinary”

election and, catcalling and booing, removed all Communist members

from the works council.

Opposition to Communists—a distinction was usually drawn between

“good” (= lukewarm) and “bad” (= radical) Communists27—came from

various motives. As is well known, syndicalists are basically critical of po-

litical parties. Workers in the
Asbestos Works
in Zvěřínek crossed out all names on the list of candidates arguing that “elections carried out in this

way [i.e. prearranged by the KSČ—P.H.] are a breach of democracy as

conceived by the trade unions”.28 Opposition to those Party members who

built political careers on socialist labor competition was widespread. Thus,

in 1951, in the Plzeň
Škoda Works
many bemedalled and beribboned “he-

roes of labor” who would travel from one international workers’ confer-

ence to the next, but could hardly be seen at their workplace, were voted

down on a grand scale in the election of workshop and works councils.29

In view of the front against shock work and socialist competition, which

——————

23 Report on the situation in
ČKD Stalingrad
and
Autopraga
in Prague-Vysočany and in the workshops of the Czechoslovak State Railways in Česká Lípa [October 1953]. Národní archiv (hereafter referred to as: NA), Prague. Inventory 014/12, vol. 10, no. 90, 1953/10.

24 Report of trade union instructor Slížek on his activities from October 15 to 20, 1951, October 25, 1951. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 105, no. 382.

25 Report on safeguarding elections to trade union organizations in the
Lenin plants
[=

Škoda Works
] Plzeň, January 18, 1952. Škoda archives, ZVIL 1495, PV 751.

26 Report of trade union instructor Slížek on his activities from November 10 to 17, 1951.

VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 105, no. 382.—Report on investigation into the activities of the party’s factory organizations in the Railway Workshops in Česká Lípa, May 21 and 22, 1953. NA, inventory 02/3, vol. 40, no. 224.

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

VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 105, no. 382.

28 Report on elections of trade union factory groups in the chemical industry, June 13, 1953. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, no. 478a.

29 Report on safeguarding elections of trade union organizations in the
Lenin plants

[=
Škoda Works
] Plzeň, January 18, 1952. Škoda archives, ZVIL 1495, PV 751.

192

P E T E R H E U M O S

formed as early as 1951 and was supported by many leading works council

members (Heumos 2005b), Communist worship of ever increasing work

intensity was apparently an important motive for voting against the KSČ.

The sources do not allow for a more precise idea of the extent of

industrial conflict accompanying elections. Certainly, the official election

statistics occasionally specify the figures of so-called substitute bodies set

up when the list of candidates failed.30 The degree of acceptance, however,

of the official lists of candidates suggested by low figures for substitute

bodies seems to be too high.31 Following official figures, that acceptance

would have been more than 98 per cent in 1950.32 Information provided

by a trade union instructor and confirmed by other sources, is probably

more realistic, even though it is limited to 1951 and to just one trade union.

According to this information, in 1951, in the glass and ceramics industry

alone approximately 14 per cent of the official lists of candidates missed

the 80 per cent quorum.33

Insisting on Grassroots Democracy: Lower Communist

and Trade Union Officials

The Governmental Decree no. 17 of March 10, 1953 stipulated that works

councils, which, since 1947, had been elected by acclamation, should again

be elected by secret ballot; at the same time, the 80 per cent quorum was

reduced to simple majority (Sbírka 1953, 160–161). Even earlier, directives

issued by the Central Council on January 22/23, 1953 laid down that indi-

vidual names on the list of candidates could be crossed out and other

——————

30 These substitute bodies were not elected, but, since 1945, appointed by the trade union factory group.

31 For the year 1950, the official trade union statistics for Bohemia and Moravia show 181

substitute bodies for more than 14,000 elected works council members. Cf. report for the secretariat of the Central Council of trade unions on elections of trade union factory groups. VOA, ÚRO-Sekr., box 12, no. 383.

32 The percentage according to the figures stated in note 32.

33 Report for the presidency of the CC of the glass and ceramic workers’ trade union.

Evaluation of the election campaign [November 1951]. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 109, no.

384d. Information given in this report is confirmed by: Report of trade union instructor Svoboda on his activities from November 10 to 17, 1951. ÚRO-Org., box 105, no. 382.

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 193

names be added.34 Both regulations, to be sure, legalized what was in use

before. There is evidence of a secret ballot in 1950 in the Olomouc dis-

trict,35 and it is proven, too, that individual names were crossed out earlier

than January 1953.36

Many things, therefore, seem to indicate that the Communist leadership

felt uncertain how emphatically to enforce its “leading role” in the factory.

A certain hesitation is actually evidenced insofar as Party cells in the facto-

ries were officially assigned the task of controlling the management as late

as 1954 (Kaplan 2007, 203). Moreover, the Party refrained from demon-

strating its power vis-à-vis the works councils when elections were held in

industrial areas of great importance for building up socialism and where, at

the same time, workers were expected to be particularly rebellious. It is,

therefore, not accidental that in the Moravská Ostrava coalfields as early as

1950 more than half of approximately 15,000 shop stewards and members

of workshop and works councils were non-Communists.37

In addition, there is reason to believe that the Party leadership could

not dispose of unlimited resources when trying to bring the shop floor

under control (Heumos 2008b). The catchy thesis claiming that in the

factories a group of ideologically hardboiled Party officials was always

master of the situation (Kaplan 2007) is best contradicted by citing the

Party leadership itself, which, in the early 1950s, kept lamenting that one-

third of the Party’s members did not fulfill their duties38 and only one-third

actively participated in Party work.39 It is true that, after 1948, some factory cells looked upon the principle of their leading role as an invitation to take

——————

34 Final evaluation of works council elections in the energy industry’s trade union, June 17, 1953. VOA, ÚRO-Org., box 140, no. 478a.

35 Evaluation of the election campaign and summary of election results in the Olomouc district, June 16, 1950. VOA, KOR, box 14/1950, no. 59.

36 Report on safeguarding elections of trade union organizations in the
Lenin plants

[=
Škoda Works
] Plzeň, January 18, 1952. Škoda archives, ZVIL 1495, PV 751.

37 Minutes of the extended plenary meeting [of the Moravská Ostrava district trade union council], June 8 and 9, 1950. VOA, KOR, 1950, box 15, no. 60. The total number of trade union officials elected in the area of the Moravská Ostrava district trade union council is given as 15,149, of which 6,438 were members of the KSČ and 8,281 non-Communists. At the time when the plenary meeting took place, information was still lacking on elections in four trade unions.

38 Experience gathered during the preparation and in the course of meetings of [Party]

members in the district of
Klement Gottwald Ironworks
in Vítkovice [October 1952]. NA, inventory 014/12, vol. 7, no. 38.

39 Káňa’s report on the situation in the
President Gottwald Pit
in Moravská Ostrava [August 1951]. NA, inventory 100/2, vol. 4, no. 54.

194

P E T E R H E U M O S

command of management and works council.40 Nevertheless, the Party

leadership was deeply dissatisfied with its cells taking a firm ideological

stand, in particular with regard to elections. In the Party leaders’ view, for

instance, the political “safeguarding” of the elections in 1951 had been

completely inadequate in a “number of cases” with the factory cells shrink-

ing back from determined measures that would have been interpreted as

“Party diktat”. So they did not interfere when, as works council members

were nominated, Party members were passed over. The reason as to why

former social democrats were elected to the works councils was allegedly