ADVERTISEMENTS:
Read this essay to learn about:- 1. Origin of Whitley Councils 2. Objects of Whitley Councils 3. Authority 4. Evaluation.
Essay # 1. Origin of Whitley Councils:
The Whitley Councils in England are based upon the Report on Relations between Employers and Employees submitted by the Whitely Committee under the chairmanship of Whitely, the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1917.
This committee had recommended the establishment of joint industrial councils with an equal number of representatives of the employers and employees to promote cooperation and understanding. Soon after the adoption of its recommendations by the Government, the civil servants associations began to press for the application of Whitley recommendation to public services also.
They ‘wanted Whitley, the whole of Whitley, and nothing but Whitely’. After some negotiations with the union representatives, the Government accepted their demand on 8th of April, 1919. A committee was appointed to work over a modified constitution for Whitley Councils in the Civil Service. The committee under the chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Ramsay submitted its report on 28th April, 1919.
On the basis of this report, Whitley Councils have been established now in each of the Government departments. Referring about the establishment of Whitley Councils, White observes “Perhaps the most significant change in the British Civil Service in present generation is the establishment of the Whitley Councils.
These bodies have representatives in equal numbers of the official and staff sides and have proved a valuable agency for presenting the views and criticisms of the staff for conciliation and for the adjustment of many points of difference.”
Essay # 2. Objects of Whitley Councils:
The objects of Whitley Councils are:
(1) To provide machinery for the discussion of grievances as to the conditions of service and to determine general principles regarding the same;
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(2) To provide the best means for utilizing the ideas and experience of the staff;
(3) To give to the staff a greater share in and responsibility for the determination and observance of the conditions under which they work;
(4) To encourage further education of the staff;
(5) To improve efficiency in public service and promote the welfare of the staff;
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(6) To propose legislation so far as it has a bearing upon the positions of civil servants in relation to their employment.
Essay # 3. Authority of Whitley Councils:
The authority of the Councils is merely advisory. Problems of staff management are discussed in these councils between the official and staff sides. The result may be agreement or disagreement between the two sides.
If they reach an agreement, well and good, but if the discussions result in disagreement, the Head of the Department is free to act in his discretion. Thus the Whitley Councils have not relieved the Government of any part of its responsibility to Parliament.
While the acceptance by the Government of the Whitley system implies an intention on its part to make the fullest possible use of the Whitley procedure, it has not surrendered its liberty of action in the-exercise of its authority and the discharge of its responsibilities in the public interest.
Essay # 4. Organisation of Whitley Councils:
The Whitley machinery for public servants consists of:
1. National Council
2. Departmental Councils
3. District Committees.
1. National Council:
It is composed of 54 members, half of whom are appointed by the Government representing the official side, and the other half is appointed by the various staff associations according to a definite plan of distribution. The Council has a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman. The Chairman belongs to the official side and the Vice-Chairman to the staff side.
There are four Secretaries for the Council. Each side appoints two of its members to act as Secretaries. The official side was originally appointed by the Cabinet but nowadays vacancies are filled up by the Treasury. Members do not have fixed tenure and continue to serve until they resign or retire.
The official side consists mainly of Heads of Departments, a few Deputy heads and Treasury officers of lower ranks. Invariably members are the serving civil servants. From 1922 to 1930, the official side included three Members of Parliament as well.
However, this practice was stopped on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. The staff side was in the initial stages appointed by the major groups of staff associations as existed in 1919.
However, composition of the staff side has undergone a change since 1919. The staff side is responsible for filling the vacancies and earmarking number of seats to different associations. Occasionally staff association officials who got elected to Parliament sat on the Council.
The constitution of Whitley Councils provides that “the scope of the National Council shall comprise all matters which affect the conditions of service of the staff.” The Council works through Standing Committees to which particular subjects like promotion, reorganization, retrenchment, etc., are referred. In the early years of its history, the National Council made valuable reports on Reorganization, Promotion, etc.
2. Departmental Councils:
As a general rule there is one Departmental Council set up in each department. The membership of these councils is small in number. The official side of the Council is appointed by the Minister or the Head of the Department.
The members of the staff side are elected by the Associations having members employed in the particular department. The Head of the Department is usually the Chairman. A member of the Establishment Division is generally the secretary. Members include both the civil servants and association officials.
The departmental councils can discuss any promotion in regard to which it is represented that the principles of promotion have been violated. The Councils can report matters falling within the sphere of more than one departmental developments which appear to be inconsistent with national agreements. The number of Departmental Whitley Councils is about 70.
3. District Committees:
These committees are constituted on the same principles as Departmental Councils. They deal with purely local problems of the staff.
Proceedings:
The ordinary meetings of the National Council are to be held as often as necessary and not less than once a quarter. A special meeting of the Council shall be convened by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman as required. In practice, the National Council rarely meets. It transacts its business through committees and great deal of it through personal contacts between the staff side and the leading members of the official side.
An official side representative presides in all Council and committee meetings. The Vice-Chairman belonging to the staff side never presides. Questions discussed by the councils or committees are not settled by vote. Both the sides are indivisible. Hence if the two sides happen to disagree a decision cannot be reached within the Whitley framework.
Since decisions are to be arrived at by an agreement between two sides, they must be signed by the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. They are, therefore, reported to the Cabinet and with its consent become operative. The National Staff side holds its meetings at least once in a month and has its own constitution and standing orders. Votes are taken in these meetings.
Same is the case in the departmental councils. However, they may or may not report all their proceedings to the main Departmental Council or to one of its committees for approval. Great importance is attached to the office committees which are set up in the individual department. These committees can do much to smooth out local difficulties and deal with the main grievances of the staff on the job.
Essay # 5. Evaluation of Whitley System:
Evaluating the advantages of Whitley system, Dr. Finer observes, “Something very important psychologically has been gained when there can be a semi-public review of foolish, untactful or despotic show of authority—when resentment of arbitrary interference with habit is avoided. Thus, officials below the top grade have now a feeling that in regard to promotion, leave and other official benefits, any jobbery is likely to be detected and quashed…the departmental councils have actually produced an invaluable and indispensable atmosphere of good and easy relationship between superiors and subordinates.”
The greatest advantage of Whitley Councils has been increasing harmonious relationship between the staff and the Government.
In the words of Sir Albert Day, “The staff movement is much more harmonious, thanks to Whitleyism, than it used to be, and is imbued with a sense of common purpose and corporate responsibility once woefully lacking. Strong differences are sometimes revealed, of course, and occasionally there may be quite a blow off. But I expect that can happen on the official side as well….”
Whitley Councils have also helped in raising the morale and efficiency of administration, by providing a common meeting ground to the employer and employees to sit together and discuss matters of common importance they have created better understanding among both and removed many misconceptions. Government knows the view of the staff and can make necessary alterations in its policy.
Mr. Winnifrith rightly observes, “Quite frankly I admit that the management, if only because of its amateur status, does not always know what is best. It is, therefore, of the utmost value to the management side to have the benefit of informed staff opinion before introducing any changes in the conditions of service.”
It is universally recognized that Whitley Councils have created goodwill and harmonious relationship between staff and the authorities.
It would be appropriate to quote what Douglas Houghton in his lecture at the Indian Institute of Public Administration said on December 10, 1957:
“To return to day-to-day working of the Whitley Council, as I have said, most of the formalities have largely been dispensed with. There is a good deal of informal discussion and a good deal of putting cards on the table behind the scenes. The Chairman of the Official side would never be in difficulty these days in sending for me or for the Secretary-General of the Staff side, to say to us privately how matters stood on a particular claim. He might say—’I am just explaining to you beforehand the decision which has been reached so that you may think it over and come to our formal meeting prepared for the news I am giving you now. Sometimes we go to the Official side equally informally and ‘off the record’ to prepare their minds or to give them information which is best given privately during the negotiations, on the Priestly Commission’s Report, we had a great many informal consultations. In fact, we met every alternate day to get the job done. The Official side had their own meetings; and we too, on our side, had our own conferences. Then, we had informal meetings together in the afternoon, or in the morning, so that at the formal meeting, which would be held the next day, we pretty well knew how each side stood; we did not have to waste a lot of time on ‘shadow boxing’. When the Official side made their statement, we had an idea what lay behind it and what room for manoeuvre there might be. The Official side may say—’We cannot accept your proposal as they stand. It is not for us to suggest a compromise. If you press the matter and are able to modify your claim, then we might be able to do business.’ The words ‘to do business’ are used very frequently in our informal contacts, because we all want to do business and we are trying to get the basis on which business can be done. We get no satisfaction out of discussion for discussion’s sake. Sometimes things have to be put on record because members want to know what has been said on their behalf, but the informal talk which goes on is strictly confidential and is a means of getting agreement. The record may merely recall the more formal side of the negotiations. There is nothing strange about that. Outside trade unions and the employers adopt these off the record’ methods too.”
It can therefore be concluded that the civil services have derived lot of benefits through the institution of Whitley Councils in England. The problems of the civil services, viz., reclassification, salaries, political rights, further education and training, promotion, discipline, general morale, have been very well tackled by the departmental and National Councils.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
However, we must not assume that Whitleyism has not met any hostility in Britain. In their evidence before the Tomlin Commission, certain heads of departments strongly favoured the abolition of Whitley Councils. Trade unionism, an extreme socialism, has been frankly hostile to Whitleyism because of the apprehension that it might undermine the militant spirit of labour.
The success of Whitley system has been varied from department to department. According to Dr. Gladden, “In some offices Whitleyism has been a great success, in others, possibly the majority; its achievement has been only moderate. Everything has clearly depended upon the spirit with which it has been worked.
Where the highest degree of cooperativeness has been forthcoming from both the staff and official sides, success has been certain. Where the higher officers have viewed the system as an encroachment upon their inherent prerogatives, and where the staff has confronted it in a selfish attitude of taking, without giving, failure has been inevitable.
In fact, the success of Whitley Councils depends on the co-operative attitude of the official and the staff side. If the officials prove snobbish and consider it humiliating to talk to the staff on equal basis or if the staff does not believe in the policy of compromise, and ‘give and take,’ the failure of the Whitley Council becomes inevitable.
However, if the officials are not arrogant or autocratic and if the staff keeps in mind broader national issues while emphasizing its own demands the Whitley system is apt to be successful. No doubt the success of Whitleyism, depends upon the adoption by both sides of a policy of co-operation and compromise rather than controversy and contention.