In May 1974, a single act of error, the wrong pay packet handed to a South Asian woman—opened a door that led to one of Britain’s defining industrial fights around race, dignity, and power. Over 500 predominantly South Asian workers at the Imperial Typewriters factory walked out, launching a strike that would last 14 weeks, reshape community relations, and leave a legacy far beyond bonus disputes.

Picket Lines and Solidarity

The initial trigger was simple: bonuses not paid, promotions denied, and daily experiences of discrimination that “you could feel but not overtly see,” as several participants later described. When the local branch of the Transport & General Workers Union (TGWU) refused to make the strike official, many White workers declined to cross the picket but stayed silent. The union leadership, headed locally by George Bromley, argued the strikers had not followed proper procedure.

“They have no legitimate grievances and it’s difficult to know what they want,” Bromley would tell Race Today. “In a civilised society, the majority view will prevail. Some people must learn how things are done…”

Bennie Bunsee: Outsider with Influence

Though he did not work at Imperial, Bennie Bunsee emerged as a crucial advisor to the strike committee. A political exile from South Africa, Bunsee had previously supported Asian women at the Mansfield Hosiery Mills dispute in 1972. He travelled to Leicester, gathered testimonies, raised moral and practical support, and served as a voice that bridged community activism and ideological critique.

Bunsee insisted the strike exposed how many union officials failed Black and Asian workers—standing more with management than with their members.

Roger Tanner: Learning Solidarity, and Samosas

Among the young Whites who joined the picket lines was Roger Tanner, a student who saw in the strike something transformative.

“It was the most important strike,” Tanner recalled years later, “which brought people together from over the East Midlands. Spending time … I also learned to cook proper Indian food.”

For Tanner, the strike was not only about pay or bonuses; it was about learning community, sharing culture, and standing with neighbours whose voices were often ignored.

Strikers Speak: From Bonus Checks to Equality

Workers interviewed during the strike voiced grievances that stretched beyond money. Among their complaints: White women being allowed to choose better lines; Asian workers passed over for promotion; foremen making racially charged remarks; quotas raised without consultation. These injustices built up over years until the bonus discrepancy, poorly explained by management, became the final straw.

Management Denials and Union Complicity

Imperial’s management, supported by Bromley in his union role, denied there was any unlawful discrimination. They rejected the strikers’ claims, saying the grievances were informal, felt rather than documented. A Race Relations Board inquiry later found “no evidence of unlawful discrimination,” though strikers disputed both its speed and its impartiality.

Bromley publicly criticised the strike as unofficial, procedural, even improper. He warned of factory closures and defended prompting workers “to learn how things are done.” Opponents said he was defending existing power structures at the expense of justice.

Aftermath: Dignity, Defeat, and Lessons

By August the factory shut down. Workers returned—or were forced to—but many felt that while little material gain had been achieved, something had shifted. Confidence. Awareness. Common purpose. The strike became a touchstone for subsequent struggles by South Asian and Black workers in Britain.

Tanner talks about how, despite the hardship, he and others “gained things you didn’t know before.” Bunsee’s involvement showed that formal employment was not the only basis of leadership. And the strike laid bare that some unions, despite their rhetoric, were slow to defend those facing racism within their ranks.