Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:51:29.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Junior Hospital Doctors’ Pay Dispute 1975–1976: An Analysis of Events, Issues and Conflicts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Susan Treloar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In late 1975, for the first time in the history of the National Health Service, junior hospital doctors in the United Kingdom took industrial action. Their pay and working conditions were basic issues, but the dispute was complex. The first part of this article describes these complexities – the significant events, and the grievances and their resolution. In the second part the dispute is analysed in terms of its causes, effects and implications, particularly for the medical profession. The ambivalence, confusion and ignorance about the new contract and the question of breaking government pay policy, problems of representation, and conflicts of interests within the profession are highlighted. It is suggested that the significant economic gains of the junior doctors were not achieved by industrial action.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration 1957–1960 (Pilkington Report), Cmnd 939, HMSO, London, 1960, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

2 The full HJSGC consisted of eight members elected by the representative body (training grades), thirty-six elected by regional (elected) HJSGSs in England, seven by the Scottish HJSGC, two each by Wales and Northern Ireland, six non-voting representatives from other BMA committees and, ex officio, the Scottish HJSGC chairman and a junior member of the BMA Council elected by the Junior Members' Forum. Up to three members could be co-opted – British Medical Journal, 28 December 1974, 786–7.Google Scholar

3 Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB), Fifth Report, Cmnd 6032, HMSO, London, 1975, p. 37.Google Scholar

4 British Medical Journal, Supplement, 10 November 1973, 31.Google Scholar

5 Ibid. Recommendation 20, p. 33.

6 Ibid. pp. 36–7.

7 Pulse, 25 October 1975, 2.Google Scholar

8 British Medical Journal, 18 January 1975, 159–60.Google Scholar

9 See Gordon, H. L. and Iliffe, S. R., Pickets in White: The Junior Doctors' Dispute of 1975: A Study of the Medical Profession in Transition, MPU Pūblications, London, 1977, p. 40.Google Scholar

10 JHDA, Junior Hospital Doctors' Handbook, London, 1977, p. 53.Google Scholar

11 The Times, 17 November 1975, 4.Google Scholar

12 DDRB, Fifth Report, p. 37.Google Scholar

13 The Attack on Inflation, Cmnd 6156, HMSO, London, 1975.Google Scholar

14 See Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit. p. 45.

15 British Medical Journal, 1 March 1975, 534.Google Scholar

16 See Levitt, R., The Reorganised National Health Service, second edition, Croom Helm, London, 1977, p. 90.Google Scholar

17 DDRB, Supplement to Fifth Report, Cmnd 6243, HMSO, London, 1975.Google Scholar

18 Ibid. para. 7, pp. 3–4. In July 1975 the HJSGC had become the Hospital Junior Staffs Committee (HJSC).

19 Ibid. Table 4, pp. 24–5.

20 Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education (Todd Report), Cmnd 3569, HMSO, London, 1968, pp. 46 and 52.Google Scholar

21 In June 1975 a DHSS Health Service Circular (Interim Series), HSC (IS) 157, indicated that junior doctors could retain their existing contracts if they would lose money on the new contract. Subsequently the DHSS argued that ‘no detriment’ only applied to the previous basic salary, and not to the extra duty allowance contribution to income – British Medical Journal, 18 October 1975, 179.Google Scholar

22 DDRB, Supplement to Fifth Report, para. 19, p. 10.Google Scholar

23 Pulse, 27 September 1975, 2.Google Scholar

24 British Medical Journal, 18 October 1975, 178.Google Scholar The ‘principle’ motion was passed by forty-five votes to four. The ‘pricing’ motion was passed by forty-one votes to nine.

25 See Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit. p. 50.

26 Pulse, 15 November 1975, 2.Google Scholar

27 Shattock, F., in British Medical Journal, 27 12 1975, 762.Google Scholar For example 51.7 per cent of those returning valid votes (14, 213), 61.2 per cent of those entitled to answer the question, and 58 per cent of those who actually answered the question favoured industrial action. The BMA claimed that the response rate was very high (90 per cent), as the electorate was ‘only 15,000 to 16,000 NHS contract holders’ – British Medical Journal, 22 November 1975, 425.Google Scholar But in 1975 there were 21,803 junior doctors in hospital practice – Doctor Manpower 1975–2000, Research Report no. 4, Royal Commission on the National Health Service, HMSO, London, 1978, p. 42.Google Scholar

28 British Medical Journal, 6 December 1975, 598.Google Scholar

29 See Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit. p. 59.

30 British Medical Journal, 27 December 1975, 772–3.Google Scholar

31 It did not end immediately after the December meeting, as claimed by the authors, in Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit. p. 65.

32 DDRB, Third Supplement to Fifth Report, Cmnd 6406, HMSO, London, 1976.Google Scholar

33 Pulse, 20 March 1976, 2.Google Scholar On average 93 per cent of all units of medical time over the standard week were being paid at the Class A rate. The review body later estimated an annual cost of £30.4 million for supplements, on the basis of claims under the new contract – DDRB, Seventh Report, Cmnd 6800, HMSO, London, 1977, para. 25, p. 15.Google Scholar

34 DDRB, Sixth Report, Cmnd 6473, HMSO, London, 1976.Google Scholar

35 One reason given for this was that consultants were resentful that juniors earning in excess of £8,500 were receiving the £312 increase while they themselves were excluded – Pulse, 10 July 1976, 2.Google Scholar Also all junior doctors had been given the right to practise privately outside their contract, whereas whole-time NHS consultants were barred from private practice. Moreover there was increasing financial disadvantage in the move from senior registrar to consultant, because of the new contract.

36 DHSS, 76/209, 25 August 1976.Google Scholar

37 British Medical Journal, 1 November 1975, 248.Google Scholar

38 See Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit. p. 13.

39 For example Dr Wasily Sakalo, an Australian registrar active in the north west of England who received much attention from the news media during the dispute, claimed that the relatively unfavourable financial position of English junior doctors compared with that of juniors in Australia was a personal motivating factor – The Times, 19 November 1975, 4.Google Scholar

40 See Cuming, M. W., Personnel Management in the National Health Service, Heinemann, London, 1978, p. 184.Google Scholar

41 See for example Elliot, F. R., ‘Professional and Family Conflicts in Hospital Medicine’, Social Science and Medicine, 13 (1979), 57–64.Google Scholar

42 The problem centred around the unequal distribution of doctors between regions and specialities, and career opportunities, which change over time. Basically there was ‘inconsistency between the idealized versions of specialist training and the pattern of medical practice…established in NHS hospitals’ – Doctor Manpower 1975–2000, p. 42.Google Scholar

43 In July 1976 some were ‘still asking what UMTs were’ – British Medical Journal, 24 July 1976, 255.Google Scholar There was also evidence that ‘lack of communication between the centre and the hospital messes was as much the cause of the row over the contract as was its contents…This microcosm of junior staff were obviously uncertain about what protest action to take or at whom to direct it…The back end of the BMJ was unmapped territory to them…’ – British Medical Journal, 18 October 1975, 157.Google Scholar

44 See Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit. p. 40. The HJSC apparently had ‘great difficulty in getting the same faces together for successive meetings’, with inexperienced doctors deputizing for others – Pulse, 25 October 1975, 2.Google Scholar

45 Pulse, 6 December 1975, 2.Google Scholar

46 See for example The Times, 1 December 1975, 13Google Scholar; and 3 December 1975, 17.

47 See for example The Times, 27 October 1975, 13.Google Scholar

48 Cited in ordon and Iliffe, op. cit. pp. 54–5.

49 One miners' union threatened that miners would not restrain their wage claims if the junior doctors were allowed to break pay policy – The Times, 28 November 1975, 6.Google Scholar

50 See Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit. p. 54.

51 Pulse, 6 December 1975, 3.Google Scholar

52 Editorial in The Guardian, 25 October 1975.Google Scholar

53 The Economist, 29 November 1975.Google Scholar

54 Pulse, 27 November 1976, 4.Google Scholar The JHDA believed that ‘correctly manipulated [the contract] should bring between £1,500 and £3,500 to virtually every junior doctor's salary within this next year’ – On Call, 17 February 1976, 3.Google Scholar Mr Ennals said later that each junior was receiving an average £800 a year extra because of the new supplement system – The Times, 16 July 1976, 2.Google Scholar Between April 1975 and April 1976 juniors' earnings moved ahead by, on average, 5 per cent, relative to the earnings of those at comparable income levels – DDRB, Seventh Report, para. 27, p. 17.Google Scholar This was over and above the April 1975 increase.

55 A report published in April 1976 by the Social Services and Employment Subcommittee of the Commons Expenditure Committee concluded that the main cause of the discrepancy between the DHSS and Price Waterhouse audit estimates of the available money was inefficient processing of claims. In addition accurate figures on the number of junior doctors and their hours of work had not been available, as BMA, JHDA and DHSS figures confused the issue – The Times, 28 April 1976, 2.Google Scholar

56 DDRB, Sixth Report, para. 20:13Google Scholar. In 1978, however, the review body agreed to relate salary scales to the ten-units-of-medical-time week – DDRB, Eighth Report, Cmnd 7176, HMSO, London, 1978, para. 32, p. 21.Google Scholar

57 See for example Pulse, 6 December 1975, 3.Google Scholar

58 See Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit. p. 63. The authors' analysis portrayed greater unity (they were MPU members), and downplayed the conflict between the JHDA and the BMA. The JHDA itself blamed the government for exploiting lack of unity in the profession – On Call, 11 November 1975, 12.Google Scholar

59 Important recommendations relating to expansion of the consultant grade and establishment of a new training grade (supported by the HJSC) were later opposed by the CCHMS because consultants did not want to lose the labour of their junior staff – British Medical Journal, 26 January 1980, 265.Google Scholar

60 On Call, 28 October 1975, 8.Google Scholar

61 British Medical Journal, 12 June 1976, 1,480.Google Scholar

62 The HJSC structure was to be changed to resemble the GMSC and local medical committee structure, to facilitate better representation on the basis of the smaller NHS areas as opposed to regions – Pulse, 13 December 1975, 2.Google Scholar

63 Pulse, 26 June 1976, 2.Google Scholar

64 Pulse, 12 June 1976, 2.Google Scholar

65 DHSS, Annual Report 1975, Cmnd 6565, HMSO, London, 1976, p. 27.Google Scholar

66 On the State of the Public Health for the Year 1976, annual report ot the Chief Medical Officer of the DHSS, HMSO, London, 1977, p. 13.Google Scholar The ascribed reason was the occurrence of a major influenza epidemic rather than disruption in medical services.

67 An inquest determined that the death of a five-month-old baby, Bhola, Seema, on 10 December 1975Google Scholar, after admission to two hospitals had been refused, had not been due to the industrial action.

68 For example the JHDA had recommended that only terminations of pregnancy on medical indications should be performed – On Call, 9 December 1975, 9.Google Scholar While the DHSS received no formal complaints from patients – The Times, 3 December 1975, 2Google Scholar – the Patients' Association reported suffering and complaints – The Times, 19 November 1975, 4.Google Scholar

69 See Illich, I., Limits to Medicine, Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health, Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1976.Google Scholar

70 Rogers, A., in Pulse, 27 November 1976, 4.Google Scholar

71 See Badgley, R. F. and Wolfe, S., Doctors' Strike: Medical Conflict in Saskatchewan, Atherton Press, New York, 1967, 73.Google Scholar

72 See Congalton, A. A., ‘Public Evaluation of Medical Care’, Medical Journal of Australia, 24 (1969)Google Scholar, 1,165.

73 See Best, G., Dennis, J. and Draper, P., Health, the Mass Media and the National Health Service, Unit for the Study of Health Policy, London, 1977.Google Scholar

74 Examples of publications are Badgley and Wolfe, op. cit.; Belmar, R. and Sidel, V. W., ‘An International Perspective on Strikes and Strike Threats by Physicians: The Case of Chile’, International Journal of Health Services, 5:1 (1975), 53–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Marcus, S. A., ‘The Purposes of Unionization in the Medical Profession: The Unionized Profession's Perspective in the United States’, International Journal of Health Services, 5:1 (1975), 37–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Gordon and Iliffe, op. cit.

75 See Smart, G. A., ‘The Provision of Medical Care in Hospital in the United Kingdom and its Effect on Medical Education’, in Kent, P. W. (ed.), International Aspects of the Provision of Medical Care, Oriel Press, Stocksfield, 1976, p. 15.Google Scholar

76 See Abel-Smith, B., Value for Money in Health Services, Heinemann, London, 1976, p. 5.Google Scholar

77 Junior hospital posts meet service rather than training needs – Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, p. 46.Google Scholar The original HJSGC document on the contract had stated that training was not the main justification for hospital junior staff pay – British Medical Journal, Supplement, 10 November 1973, 31.Google Scholar

78 See Wootton, B., ‘Towards a Rational Pay Policy’, New Society, 47:860 (1979), 736Google Scholar; and Navarro, V., Class Struggle, the State and Medicine, Martin Robertson, London, 1978, p. 127.Google Scholar

79 See Werther, W. B. and Lockhart, C. A., Labor Relations in the Health Professions, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1976, p. 107Google Scholar; and ‘The Art of Negotiation’, editorial, New Society, 47:860 (1979), 723.Google Scholar

80 In June 1978 the HJSC and the JHDA decided to withdraw from the review body system, but the decision was criticized by BMA consultants and general practitioners. In November 1978 the HJSC offered to abandon the right to take industrial action if junior doctors were given the right of direct bargaining on pay – The Times, 23 November 1978, 2.Google Scholar

81 Report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration 1957–1960, paras 402–5, p. 140.Google Scholar

82 See Making Whitley Work, HMSO, London, 1976.Google Scholar

83 See Hobsbawm, E. J., ‘Inside every Worker there is a Syndicalist Trying to Get Out’, New Society, 48:861 (1979), 8–10.Google Scholar