[6]: 1:15 The dispute was reported nightly on the national television news, depicting the often violent clashes between the supporters of the strikers and the Metropolitan Police's Special Patrol Group.
The growth of amateur colour photography meant that small High Street chemists which had previously serviced this market "could no longer afford the equipment to develop family snapshots, and the photo-processing field was left wide open for larger, specialist companies" such as Grunwick.
"[12][16][17] The MP for Brent South, Laurence Pavitt, said that in his dealings with the company over "many years" prior to the dispute, the management had been rude and intransigent, failing to respond to his letters, and treated the workers in a "deplorable fashion.
"[18] MP Joe Ashton accused the firm of "exploiting coloured workers", and writer and political activist Amrit Wilson asserted that Grunwick's management "made use of the poverty of Asians" and would turn away non-Asian applicants.
"[19] The 1977 Scarman Inquiry would ultimately conclude that "physical working conditions in the company before the strike were good; although the rates of pay were low prior to the strike, the company increased financial benefits paid to workers in November 1976 and April 1977 [until] the rates of pay were broadly comparable with, and in some respects, slightly better than, those paid by comparable firms in the industry... and employees understood and accepted the requirement of compulsory overtime during busy periods.
[1] According to APEX's subsequent testimony at the Scarman Inquiry, their grievance with the company consisted of "low pay, long hours with compulsory overtime, petty restrictions imposed on working people, a bullying attitude on the part of supervision, and frequent dismissals and threats of dismissals," leading to "the expressed intention of bringing in trade union representation.
In the intervening period, APEX had declared the strike "official" and sought a meeting with Grunwick management, as did, informally, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas).
As a result, on 7 October 1976 Len Murray, General Secretary of the TUC, requested trade unions give "all possible assistance" to the strikers, including "boycotting Grunwick's services.
[1][17] This had an enormous impact on the business, and on 3 November 1976 Ward claimed that the company faced going into liquidation at the end of the week if the mail continued to be withheld.
[25] Ward received backing from his local Conservative MP, John Gorst, who called for an emergency debate about the matter in the House of Commons.
[18] Tom Jackson, the General Secretary of the UPW, responded that "The Post Office Act was written many years ago and it has never been tested in relation to sympathetic industrial action.
"[25] The Act was not considered by observers to be as effective as Ward and Gorst believed, and had not been used by the Conservative government during the seven-week-long national Post Office strike in 1971.
"[31] Grunwick would not turn over the names and addresses of those still working to ACAS, or allow them access to the workers, saying that it would only do so if their opinions were canvassed while those of the strikers were not taken into consideration.
"[34] On 18 April 1977 the company served a writ on ACAS, claiming that it had exceeded its authority by canvassing the opinions of the strikersultra vires[35] The case was heard during June–July 1977.
[36] Lord Widgery said that ACAS had "made all reasonably practicable efforts to canvass staff opinion", but had been prevented speaking to all employees as Grunwick had deliberately withheld their names and addresses.
[37] While accepting that ACAS had made all the efforts that it could to ascertain the opinions of the workers inside Grunwick, the failure to do so meant that it had "not complied with the conditions and safeguards of section 14 of the Act.
The company was unable to provide evidence of violence by the pickets, and as the strike committee claimed that they could justify their allegations in a court of law the judge declined to restrain the distribution of leaflets.
[40] The dispute, and the attendant media coverage, became far more heated for a few weeks in June and July 1977 when mass-pickets formed of trade unionists and supporters from across London tried to stop non-striking Grunwick workers from entering the workplace.
The Scarman Inquiry recommended the reinstatement of the strikers, said that the management had acted "within the letter but outside the spirit of the law" and that union recognition could "help the company as well as the employees".
[10] A 2016 BBC radio documentary, Grunwick Changed Me, described how the involvement of white, working class men in support of Asian women strikers was seen as a turning point in race relations in the United Kingdom.
In August 1977 Sir Keith Joseph, a prominent Conservative politician, called the Grunwick dispute "a make-or-break point for British democracy, the freedoms of ordinary men and women" and described Labour ministers who joined the pickets as "'[m]oderates' behind whom Red Fascism spreads".