Whitley Councils in the Health Services
| Published date | 01 December 1957 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1957.tb01317.x |
| Author | Glyn Picton |
| Date | 01 December 1957 |
Whitley
Councils
in the Health
Services
By GLYN
PICTON
MY. Picton is a Senior Lecturer at the University
of
Birmingham. He
is
a member
of
the Management Side
of
a
Whitley Council and an
Independent Member
of
three Wages Councils. The views he expresses
are personal.
The Guillebaud Committee
N
5th July, 1948, some half a million workers in the health services
0
became subject to terms of employment which were uniform throughout
Great Britain.
In
order to determine the conditions of service and rates of
pay, negotiadng machinery was set up comprising a General Council and
nine Functional Councils, of the Whitley Council type, defined by the
Guillebaud Committee1 (para. 680, note) as “a joint negotiating body
comprising
two
Sides, one representative of employers and the other of those
employed.”
The Guillebaud Committee, concerned with the cost of the National
Health Service, devoted only a relatively small part of their report to the
working of the Whitley Councils. They recommended a substantial increase
in hospital representation
on
the Councils and a review of the arrangements
for the provision of information to the Management Sides by the people
directly concerned with the hospital service.
As
to
the agreements reached
by the Councils,
it
was recommended that they should be more flexible
so
as to provide a certain measure of elasticity to meet variations where the need
arises. The Committee noted as a major cause of concern the long delays
frequently experienced in reaching decisions both in the Functional Councils
and also in the Ministry. These they attributed partly to the
initial
immense
burden of work but also
in
part to
‘‘
defects in the Whitley machinery
”
(para.
697).
The recommendations of the Committee imply certain criticisms of the
Whitley machinery, but otherwise there is no indication of the nature of the
defects the Committee had in mind.
In
expressing the view that provision
in
the national agreements for local variations
will
help to make the machinery
more efficient, they indicated that
this
will also make
it
“
more acceptable
to the people operating the Service than
it
has been in the past
”
(para.
734 (4)). By implication, therefore,
it
would seem that there was dissatis-
faction
with
the negotiating machinery on the part of the large body
of
employees in the Health Service.
This
view is reinforced by consideration
of a formal expression of discontent made by the staff side
of
the General
Council
in
1955 and of a debate
in
the House of Commons on
8th
February,
1956.
‘‘
Wage Policy and the Health Service
”
The publication, therefore, of a study of these Whitley Councils is both timely
‘Cmnd.
9663.
January
1956.
Report
of
the
Committee
of
Enquiry
into
the
Cost
of
the
359
National
Health
Service.
To continue reading
Request your trial