In his introduction to the "Fairness at Work" white paper, prime minister Tony Blair says that the proposals it contains are "part of the government's programme to replace the notion of conflict between employers and employees with the promotion of partnership". The white paper, he says, "seeks to draw a line under the issue of industrial relations law". And he promises: "There will be no going back. The days of strikes without ballots, mass picketing, closed shops and secondary action are over."

Each of those phrases is rich with historical resonance. Throughout the 20th century, industrial relations have rarely been far from the centre of the political agenda. A century that began with the Trade Dispute Act and the creation of the Labour Party by the trade unions in an effort to advance the cause of working people through Parliament, will end with new Labour implementing legislation that, in the prime minister's words, "has at its centre our proposals for a fair balance of rights and responsibilities at work".

Like so many of new Labour's ideas, the plans for industrial relations are based on the rejection of what had been previously posed as the two alternative options - one epitomised in the harsh individualism of the Thatcher/Major years and the other in the postwar consensus that preceded them and that, by 1979, appeared to have run its course. In a process that appears to follow the Hegelian, or even Marxist dialectic, the new third way emerges as a synthesis born out of the thesis of the old Labour and the antithesis of Thatcherism.

To understand what it is that the government is proposing, to recognise those parts that build on past experience and those that lead in new directions, it is necessary to understand the historical context. It is, therefore, most timely that the ascendancy of new Labour has seen the establishment of a journal devoted to historical studies in industrial relations.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Appropriately enough, the first issue, published in 1996, begins with John Saville's analysis of the historical significance of the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, which he describes as a "new bill of rights for British trade unions". The first two issues of this twice-yearly publication also contain editorials defining the journal's mission - to bridge the chasm between the study of history and industrial relations. By the third issue, such justification appeared unnecessary and by the fourth, the editors were able to express the hope that the journal's future was assured.

There are many lessons for politicians, managers and trade unionists in these pages. Kevin Whitston's article, "Scientific management and production management practice in Britain between the wars" should be required reading for anyone studying management, if only for the telling reference to the deficiencies of works study in the 1950s by an ICI manager who is quoted as saying, "We ended with a number of men efficiently carrying out tasks which in certain instances the company did not really want performed at all."

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

And I would urge my fellow trade unionists to read Jim Phillips's account of inter-union conflict in the docks from 1954 to 1955 as a warning of what can happen when we put the interest of our own union above that of trade unionism more generally.

The editors recognise that, to date, the articles have tended to concentrate over much on the traditional areas of study: the mining industry, the docks, print and industrial conflicts. There has not been enough on the increasingly important issue of gender and work. And articles with an international dimension have only come to the fore in more recent issues.

For my part, I believe that there would be great value in looking more closely at the history and origins of the social partnership model of industrial relations. As I am sure the prime minister would acknowledge, he is not the first to seek to replace conflict with partnership. The Mond-Turner talks of the late 1920s had precisely that objective in mind. The tripartite machinery of the postwar years had its successes, which are not as widely acknowledged these days as they deserve. Step forward the historians who will redress the balance.

The title Historical Studies in Industrial Relations might not be one to fire the imagination of the hard-pressed manager, the over-stretched shop steward, the overburdened politician, yet it is a journal that could repay the attention of all three, not to mention that of academics from both the industrial relations and history disciplines at whom it is primarily aimed. The prime minister and his secretary of state for trade and industry could also do worse than to add it to their no-doubt lengthy reading lists.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

John Monks is general secretary, Trades Union Congress.