RAECOOPER*
E
arly in 2001 it looked set to be a bumper year for Australian trade unions, with a change in government seemingly inevitable and the release of figures that showed membership growth for the first time in many years. Instead, the year was characterised by a series of defensive campaigns aimed at salvaging workers’ entitlements in the face of corporate collapse, the third successive election of the anti-union Coalition Government and the establishment of a Royal Commission purpose-built to demonise trade unions. In the face of adversity Australian unions nevertheless secured improvements in the maternity rights of women workers, and commenced in earnest the campaign to win reasonable working hours. This article reviews Australian trade union matters in 2001.The year started on a high note for the union movement with the release of figures revealing membership growth for the first time in over a decade. However, on the whole, 2001 was something of a dismal year for trade unionism in Australia. Many thousands of Australian workers were told this year that the entitlements that they had worked so hard to accrue would not be honoured as their employ-ers collapsed around them. Meanwhile some of the helmsmen of the failed com-panies were paid massive ‘performance’ bonuses. Thus the critical industrial concern for workers and their trade unions in 2001 was securing, or more pre-cisely salvaging, entitlements. Defensiveness characterised union strategy in a range of other areas as unions were placed on the back foot by the actions of industrial and political players. Continuing their five years of antagonism toward the unions, the Federal Coalition established a Royal Commission into the build-ing industry with the unstated, but nonetheless clear, purpose of attackbuild-ing the union movement. Much of 2001 was spent on the federal campaign trail but when the Coalition was re-elected it became clear that the tough political times for the unions would continue. Adding insult to injury, after the election loss, senior ALP figures attacked union influence over party affairs, leaving unions to defend their legitimacy as a political and social force. Union activity was, however, not solely defensive in 2001 as evidenced by the more proactive campaigns for maternity protection and for reasonable working hours.
This discussion of trade unionism in 2001 is divided into six sections. The first examines the ‘good news’ in relation to organising and union membership, reflect-ing upon the ACTU’s ‘Organisreflect-ing Conference’ and the release of the first healthy membership figures in many years. The second section addresses politics in 2001 including the federal election, its fallout for the union movement and the
ongoing anti-union agenda of the Howard government. Thirdly the article exam-ines major disputes during the year, focusing upon the NSW unions’ fight against changes to workers compensation legislation and, while not strictly a dispute, the campaign to secure workers’ entitlements after company collapse. ACTU campaigns to increase maternity rights and to pare back working hours are reviewed in section four. Section five deals with the push to include bargaining fee clauses in enterprise agreements and the challenges this strategy may pose for Australian unions. The final section of the article overviews some of the inter-nal union business that was very publicly aired during 2001.
THE GOOD NEWS: ORGANISING, UNION MEMBERSHIP AND UNION
POPULARITY
In March 2001 the ACTU sponsored the ‘Australasian Organising Conference’ which was so well attended, with over six hundred union delegates, organisers and leaders participating, that its organisers were surprised. Over seventy papers were delivered addressing participants’ experiences in a variety of organising cam-paigns including organising workers in residential hotels in Sydney, hospital work-ers in South Australia, truck drivwork-ers throughout regional Australia, and the joint union campaign against the imposition of individual contracts in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Local unionists and visitors from North America, the United Kingdom and New Zealand discussed the implementation of organisational change programmes directed toward increasing rank and file involvement, engage-ment with the broader community, and the dedication of resources to building membership.
Echoing the sentiments of these discussions, a number of Australian unions reshaped themselves in 2001. The CPSU instigated extensive national change in structure and practices to direct significantly more resources to organising. As a result, this year the union halted the membership decline that had been occur-ring since 1996. Many union branches across the country, including the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) in NSW, the Independent Education Union in Queensland and the Civil Service Association in Western Australia reformed their organising strategies in 2001, reaping significant membership growth as a result.1 Despite the significant changes underway in many unions and the marked increase in enthusiasm for organising evidenced at the ACTU’s conference, it would be wrong to suggest that all unions have embraced an organising agenda. For Michael Crosby, Director of the ACTU’s Organising Centre, this posed a significant chal-lenge for the effectiveness, and indeed the survival, of unions in the country. Crosby argued at the Conference that too little of the unions’ scarce resources were being dedicated to organising new members as opposed to servicing the existing membership base:
Membership density figures for 2000, released in March 2001, were cause for celebration in the union ranks.3While membership density continued its slide, down 1.0% to 24.7% in 2000, this decline was significantly less than the decline of 2.4% in the previous year.4More hearteningly for the union movement, the absolute membership of Australian unions grew for the first time in over a decade, with an extra 23 500 new recruits joining in 2000. Analysis of the ABS data sug-gests that the bulk of the growth in membership was from the workers that unions most need to recruit. All of the growth in union membership came from women, who swelled the union ranks by 32 200 in 2000, an increase of 4.2% on the pre-vious year. Most of the growth in membership came from the private sector, with an increase in the number of union members in the sector of 9%, with the largest increases in membership occurring in accommodation, cafes and restaurants, health and community services, and cultural and recreational services.5
Further good news was released by the ABS this year, suggesting that in 2001 it ‘paid’ to be a union member. According to data commissioned by the ACTU, union members earned $109 more per week than their non-union colleagues and the wage gap between members and non-members grew by 7.9% over the year. Greater benefits were delivered to part-time workers who were union members. They earned 41% or $117 per week more than non-members and casuals earned 24.5% or $86 more per week than their non-union colleagues.6Results such as these may explain the growing popularity of unions.
A Labor Council of NSW survey undertaken in 2001 suggested that unions are indeed gaining popularity among the broader population. The survey sug-gested that support for unions had jumped, with 52% of respondents agreeing that they’d ‘rather be in a union’, up from 44% two years earlier. Anti-union sen-timent appears to be decreasing, with a mere 14% agreeing that ‘Australia would be better off without unions’, down from 23% in 1999. Those surveyed were more likely to believe that unions are doing a better job for their members, with the proportion of respondents saying unions weren’t doing so down to 34% from 43% in 1996.7Secretary of the Labor Council, John Robertson, commenting on the survey results suggested that the survey indicated ‘that given a freedom to choose that most workers would be in unions’.8Whether these results can be explained by changes in perceptions of union effectiveness is a matter for debate. Perhaps attitudinal shifts can be explained better by the underdog status that unions have achieved in recent years as employer and government anti-union activity has escalated. Or perhaps it has more to do with individual experiences of the workplace as employers take more and more control over the working day. Whatever the reason, the more sympathetic attitudes of those surveyed stand in stark contrast to the views of the Federal Government and, more surprisingly, with those of members of the federal Labor caucus.
POLITICS IN2001: ELECTION, REJECTION AND AROYAL COMMISSION
seats, highlighting job insecurity from corporate collapses, and cuts by the Howard government to health, education and aged care.10Unions criticised the Coalition Government, urging union members and other voters to ‘tell Howard it’s over’. The unions supported the ALP’s industrial relations policies when they pledged to abolish AWAs, to scrap the Employment Advocate and replace it with an indus-trial inspectorate, to restore powers to the Commission, and to introduce an employee protection scheme guaranteeing entitlements.11
Throughout the campaign, the new Minister for Workplace Relations, Tony Abbott, echoed the refrain that the ALP was ‘too close to the union movement’ and in the wake of the crushing result for Labor, many senior Labor figures rushed to agree with him. Frontbenchers Carmen Lawrence, Kevin Rudd, Rob McClelland, Mark Latham and even former ACTU President, Martin Ferguson, all argued that their party was under excessive influence from the unions. Regulations such as the 60:40 rule operating in some ALP state branches, guaran-teeing a union majority in Party policy making forums should, they argued, be abolished.12The argument of the federal parliamentarians came from a number of directions. Latham argued that the ALP needed to broaden its base to include representation of other interest groups, such as small business, at conferences.13 Carmen Lawrence continued her long-running campaign to remove ‘undemo-cratic’ union control over the party.14Probably the most interesting contribu-tion in the debate was that of Joel Fitzgibbon, Member for Cessnock, who argued that the ALP membership rule making union membership mandatory was ‘unfair’. It was unfair, he explained, because it meant that party members, like his own wife, were required to have a union ticket in order to get the chance to vote, for him, in preselections.15
The chortles from the government were all too audible. After jibing Simon Crean, newly elected leader of the Opposition, for his impeccable union creden-tials Howard urged Crean to take a ‘courageous’ position and distance himself from the unions and their industrial agenda: ‘You have told the Australian people that that you are no longer a puppet of the union movement, demon-strate it by letting our legislation though’16
The unions were incensed by the comments of senior party figures. Doug Cameron, National Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), claimed that the problem with the Labor Party was not that unions overran it, but that the unions did not influence it enough.17ACTU Secretary Greg Combet condemned the narrowness of the debate about the election loss and called upon Federal Labor to re-examine the values it articulated in the elec-tion, the quality of preselected candidates and the broader campaign strategy before pointing the finger at the unions.18The debate was cut short when the ALP’s National Executive announced the establishment of an inquiry, chaired by two former Labor leaders, Neville Wran and Bob Hawke, to investigate party reforms. However we can expect to hear more in this debate in 2002.
laws, further winding back of the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission, and greater ease in the making and registering of AWAs. This is likely to remain a wish list in the current term of government considering the make-up of the Senate, which is unlikely to allow such changes through.
In 2001 the union movement bade goodbye to their nemesis from the 1999 waterfront dispute, when Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith, was replaced by the equally anti-union Tony Abbott. Abbott, a self appointed ‘L-plater’ in the world of industrial relations, proved he was fit for his title when during his first speech to the AIRC showed only a cursory under-standing of the federal industrial relations system.19However what he lacked in knowledge he made up for with enthusiasm, counting among his achievements in 2001 the establishment of an inquiry into building industry.
When the Royal Commission into unlawful activities in the construction indus-try was announced on 26 July, the Prime Minister suggested that union claims that the move was a ‘cynical political manoeuvre’ were ‘plainly ludicrous’.20The announcement of the Royal Commission came two months after a report from the Employment Advocate, citing complaints of coercion and criminal activity in the industry.21John Sutton, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) Construction Division’s National Secretary, argued that there was little evidence of widespread corruption:
The number of incidents that Tony Abbott is trying to point to are very limited and few and far between, compared to the injustices that are perpetrated on workers, day in day out in the workplace in my industry and in many other industries.22
The union argued that if illegal practices were suspected in the industry then they should be investigated by the police and not via the Commission. The CFMEU also lobbied, unsuccessfully, to have the terms of reference of the Commission widened to include scrutiny of employer behaviour in areas such as tax avoidance and the use of illegal immigrant labour. They continued to warn that the Commission could well find, as did the Giles Royal Commission held in NSW a decade earlier, irregularities in employer, and indeed employer association, behaviour.23
appropriate and due respect to the worker depicted in that video and to all workers in all countries of the world who have been killed as a result of workplace accidents.26
The Commission was due to sit in Brisbane, Melbourne, Hobart and Perth between January and mid-March 2002.27
MAJOR DISPUTES: COMPENSATION AND COLLAPSES
In the twelve months to September 2001, there were 373 600 working days lost to industrial action. This represented a 41% decrease on the previous year. The industrial action that did occur was concentrated in manufacturing, with the metal manufacturing sector recording the only increase in working days lost.28This section of the paper briefly reviews two major industrial campaigns of the year where industrial action was taken. The first involved the Labor Council of NSW and the state government in a tussle over workers’ compensation. The second was the campaign to pursue workers’ entitlements after company collapses. The section briefly reviews the spate of company collapses during the year and the union response to them, including the AMWU’s campaign to secure entitlements via a trust fund called Manusafe.
In NSW a campaign by the Labor Council in respect of changes to workers compensation legislation caused some serious tensions between the union move-ment and the Carr Labor Governmove-ment. The unions were angered at changes to the workers’ compensation system which would have lowered payments to some injured workers and reduced their ability to, and narrowed the circumstances in which they could, take common law actions against employers. The dispute heated up in early June when the public transport unions refused to collect fares for three days,losing the government an estimated $10 million in revenue.29The rela-tionship between the government and the unions reached an all-time low when, on 19 June, the Labor Council and NSW unions established a picket line outside the NSW Parliament in an effort to stop the passage of the legislation scheduled for that day. Thousands of outraged unionists watched as police escorted members of the government, mostly Cabinet members, across the picket line. Premier Carr made matters worse when, in a move reminiscent of former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, he taunted picketers from the steps of Parliament. The unions were furious and senior union leaders labelled 19 June a ‘black day’ for the union–ALP relationship.30One union, the Fire Brigade Employees Union, was so angered by the government’s actions that it immediately disaffil-iated from the NSW Branch of the Labor Party.31The Secretary, Chris Reed, argued that his union would not reaffiliate until Carr was no longer the Premier:
Bob Carr’s arrogance knows no bounds. A Labor Government doesn’t cut workers comp., a Labor Government doesn’t break picket lines . . . His obvious preference for the big end of town over the welfare of injured workers, union members or not, means that this so-called ‘Labor’ Premier now has to go.32
con-sultation, and a few compromises on the part of the government, in the latter part of 2001 the legislation came into force. Labor Council Assistant Secretary, John Robertson, coordinated the union campaign and later succeeded Costa to the position of Secretary. Costa’s vocal support of the Labor Council position obviously did his political stocks no damage as, after a brief period on the back-bench, he was quickly promoted to the position of Minister for Police. The dis-pute was significant because it produced unusual tensions in the normally symbiotic relationship between the conservative Council and NSW Parliamentary Labor. At the end of the year the relationship between many of the NSW unions and the government remained decidedly sour. Coupled with the ructions at the federal level, 2002 could prove a most interesting and testing year for the post-Accord relationship between the ALP and the union movement.
Throughout 1999 and 2000 there were many heartbreaking instances of workers losing their entitlements when companies collapsed;34this became an even more prominent issue in 2001. Indeed two of the most high profile union campaigns of the year, at One.Tel and Ansett, were centred on salvaging entitle-ments. In late May, 1400 One.Tel workers were made redundant after the telecom-munications company was put in the hands of administrators. The One.Tel workers attracted huge public sympathy not simply because of their lost entitle-ments, but also because of the massive bonuses that the directors of the com-pany had paid to themselves prior to the collapse.35Adrian O’Connell, Secretary of the CPSU’s Telecommunications Section argued:
directors walked away with $7 million bonuses, yet it is unclear if One.Tel staff, who earn around $28 000 a year, will be paid at all. Anyone can see that’s unfair36
The CPSU had a major victory after moving employees to the top of the cred-itor queue for the failed company by successfully applying for retrospective award variation to incorporate industry-standard redundancy entitlements.37 The workers were paid all of their entitlements, worth some $17 million, over three weeks from late July. The union capitalised on the win, with the CPSU’s Steven Jones arguing that ‘It is indisputable that without union support, these young people would have got far less.’38This dispute also proved enormously beneficial for the union. The CPSU netted 300 new members during the dispute and, in the course of their campaign, firmly established their coverage rights in the multi-union push to organise the call centre industry.
The unions were clear on their objectives in their dealings with the government and the administrators throughout the negotiations. Greg Combet explained:
The end game is to get a buyer for the airline and get as many Ansett workers as we can into a job and for those who don’t keep a job, to get 100% of their entitlements paid.39
The union campaign to secure entitlements included a variety of tactics. The ACTU worked closely with the administrators toward finding a new buyer, indi-vidual unions campaigned in marginal seats to pressure the Government to fund workers’ entitlements, and a permanent picket line was established at Ansett terminals around the country.
A variety of bidders for the airline came forward in the ensuing months includ-ing the Ansett Pilots’ Association and Chris Corrigan of Lang Corp. and earlier, Patrick Fame, before the Fox-Lew bid was confirmed as having been successful. Each bidder, including the successful one, had made cutting wage costs a con-dition of them buying the airline. However the ACTU and unions emphasised that the airline could fly again without resorting to ‘cutting people’s pay.’40In the weeks prior to Christmas 2001 there were some significant breakthroughs in the union campaign. Federal funding of $70 million for the packages of those workers who had applied for redundancy was paid and a ‘start-up agreement’ between the unions and the Fox-Lew bid was reached. The ACTU claimed a victory with this agreement, as it maintained pre-existing rates of pay for employ-ees, had the capacity for future rises and maintained the unions’ role in the nego-tiation of future increases.41The launch date for Ansett Mark II was set for late January 2002. Ansett was one of the country’s most highly unionised companies and the repercussions of its collapse, especially in terms of membership losses, are likely to be felt by the airline unions for many years.
It would be an understatement to say that 2001 was a tough year for airlines. Many international airlines floundered and hundreds of thousands of workers were laid off after the events of 11 September. Qantas was provided with a sig-nificant shield from the international downturn by the collapse of its major domes-tic competitor but still insisted on an aggressive campaign to reduce wages with an 18-month wage freeze demand in enterprise bargaining negotiations with the unions. At the time of writing only three of the Qantas unions group, the AMWU, AWU and the Flight Attendants Association of Australia (Long Haul Division), had refused to acquiesce to these demands.
that ‘workers have a right to 100% of what they are owed by their employer––not one cent less!’44
In April 2001 ‘Manusafe’, a trust fund allowing for protection and portability of entitlements, was launched and became a core feature of the union’s negoti-ations throughout the year.45 Employers were to pay 1.5% of payroll fortnightly into an administered fund. Employer associations were vehemently opposed to Manusafe. The most vocal critic was the Australian Industry Group (AiG) who labelled the scheme a ‘flawed and damaging proposal’, which would reduce busi-ness cash flow and increase costs to employers.46In late July the biggest test for the scheme was played out in a dispute at a small auto components manufac-turer, Tristar, in Marrickville in Sydney’s inner west. The ensuing fortnight-long strike made national news by crippling the nation’s automotive industry. Tony Abbott made an extraordinary intervention in the dispute arguing that the work-ers involved were committing ‘industrial and economic treason’ and suggesting that the dispute was ‘not about worker entitlements it is about union power’.47 In answer National secretary of the AMWU chided Minister Abbott for his inter-vention arguing that it demonstrated:
the lack of understanding most politicians have about the real and everyday hard-ships that face Australian working families every day . . . The workers at Tristar are not holding out for more money or more entitlements. They are simply fighting for a scheme to protect the money they have already earned.48
After twelve days the Commission terminated the unions’ bargaining period, citing the economic damage it was causing in the industry. Two days later, on 8 August, the Tristar workers voted to return to work in a deal that gave them a 10% wage increase over two years and protected 100% of their entitlements.49 While the demand that employers contribute to the Manusafe scheme was not achieved in this round of bargaining, the union could claim some significant victories in the entitlement protection campaign. In the wake of the campaign and the collapse of Ansett, the government was forced to increase the threshold of payments to workers who had lost their entitlements, and entitlements became a significant election issue. Entitlement protection is set to remain a key con-cern for unions in 2002.
ACTU CAMPAIGNS: REASONABLE HOURS AND MATERNITY RIGHTS
growing working hours in the OECD making us the second most overworked labour force in the OECD.51Supporting evidence for the claim suggested that in 2000 nearly a third of all full-time employees, or 1.8 million workers, worked more than 48 hours per week.52These trends, the ACTU argued, posed serious problems for workers’ health, safety and their family relationships and respon-sibilities.53The ACTU’s application sought a prohibition on employers requir-ing employees to work ‘excessive hours’ defined with reference to a number of factors including shift times, work intensity and family and community respon-sibilities. Employers predictably opposed the application, arguing that the claim was too broad and costly. One employer association argued, somewhat cynically, that ‘you can’t legislate against hard work’, suggesting that long hours of work arose from employee choice rather than employer coercion.54The decision of the Full Bench is expected in 2002.
In 2001 the ACTU and affiliates pursued, and in some cases made significant headway with, improvements to the maternity rights of Australian women. Early in 2001 the Full Bench of the AIRC found in favour of the ACTU’s claim that employees with 12 months of service with an employer should have access to unpaid maternity leave. Casual employees were henceforth to have their jobs pro-tected whilst on leave in the same manner as full and part time employees. Most employer groups supported the unions’ claim, and the decision came after McDonalds had already announced that it was extending unpaid maternity leave to their casual employees.55Paid maternity leave remains a somewhat more vexed issue. However, in 2001 a number of unions successfully negotiated awards and agreements that extended paid maternity leave for members. The standout deal of the year was that negotiated at the Australian Catholic University by the CPSU and National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) guaranteeing employees twelve months’ paid leave.56The Municipal Employees’ Union (MEU) in NSW also made a significant breakthrough in their campaign to improve maternity leave standards for their members, negotiating a new award condition of 9 weeks paid leave for full and part time employees in local government.57These agreements however are far from the norm. Baird’s research suggests that, of all enterprise agreements certified in the federal jurisdiction since 1996, only 7.48% contained provisions for paid maternity leave. The standards in these agreements varied significantly, with the most common period of paid leave afforded to employees being a mere 2 weeks.58There was an ‘uglier’ side to the struggle to improve maternity rights for women workers in 2001.59 During the year a number of employers offered paid maternity leave in return for other significant conces-sions from the unions. For instance Qantas offered, and the ASU Airlines Branch accepted, 6 weeks paid maternity leave for clerical staff in return for an agree-ment on an 18-month wage freeze.60Nonetheless, the ACTU has signaled that building on the wins this year in improving maternity rights, including access to paid maternity leave, will be a key strategic concern for 2002.61
BARGAINING FEES: A CHALLENGE FOR UNIONS
2001 this policy was debated and adopted within many unions, was challenged by the Employment Advocate and was later tested by the Full Bench of the Commission. Early in the year the CEPU launched a pattern claim on Victorian electrical contractors. The claim included a clause allowing employees to choose either to join the union, at a fee of about $300 or to be charged 1% of their wage or $500, which ever was the greatest, as a bargaining fee. In February 2001 the Employment Advocate challenged the validity of the bargaining fee clauses on the grounds that they contravened freedom of association provisions of the
Workplace Relations Act 1996.62Vice President McIntyre rejected the challenge, finding that the Commission had no power to remove the clauses from agree-ments. In October, after appeal, the Full Bench upheld McIntyre’s earlier deci-sion, rejecting the Employment Advocate’s argument that the fees called for employers to differentiate between union and non-union employees.63CEPU Victorian Secretary, Dean Mighell, greeted the Commission’s decision with glee suggesting that the Commission had confirmed the validity of over 200 agree-ments that already had clauses in them.64The decision gave added impetus to many unions, organising in a diversity of areas including manufacturing, retail and higher education, who had already shown an interest in pursuing such clauses in their bargaining claims.65
There is a seductive logic to bargaining fees. Many unionists are frustrated by the ‘free riding’ problem, whereby union resources are expended to achieve increases that equally benefit members and non-members. Dean Mighell, the country’s strongest advocate of the fees, argues that they will ensure that ‘non-union workers who have knowingly and willingly benefited from ‘non-union gains’66 contribute something in return to their benefactors. However there are also some fundamental flaws, some practical, some ideological, in the strategy. At a very technical level, in a workplace where, as is often the case, several unions have been involved in negotiating enterprise agreements, which union would collect the fee? Would the unions split the proceeds or would one union receive pay-ment? Or would only the non-members in the union’s area of coverage be expected to contribute to that organisation? What would happen in situations of competitive unionism? Could all of the non-members be charged a bargaining fee despite their membership of another organisation? Bargaining fees could also pose some challenges for unions’ representational obligations. As most union-ists know, bargaining an agreement is one matter and enforcing it another. Once non-members have been charged their fee for service, can the ‘bargaining agent’ also be called upon to enforce the standards of the agreement? Should fee for service customers of a union have a right to dictate the contents of the union’s bargaining claim? Could this mean unions may be obliged to allow these indi-viduals to vote in meetings to endorse bargaining claims? What do these factors mean for union resources and the democratic functioning of organisations?
to set up an alternative to an organised membership. In workplaces with high levels of union density, such as those covered by the ETU’s agreements in Victoria, this may not pose a significant challenge for the union involved. However in work-places with lower union penetration, the imposition of a servicing fee could seri-ously undermine organising focus and possibilities. In a hotel, a call centre, or a university with membership density under 50%, the impact of charging the fee would be to set up an adversarial relationship between non-members and the union, a situation that is undoubtedly undesirable. Additionally, the new con-scripts, who may wish to avoid the fee and join the union instead, are likely to have a clear, and probably warranted, focus on union service provision. It would seem a more promising strategy to vent frustration at the ‘free rider’ problem through more systematic focus on organising the unorganised.
INTERNAL RUCTIONS: (ALLEGATIONS OF) CORRUPTION AND
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
Despite some significant achievements toward improving the working lives of members, and receiving from this some well-deserved good publicity, unions also scored a few well-publicised own goals in 2001. This was particularly so in the large blue-collar unions. In the AWU, CFMEU, and AMWU, internal political differences led to allegations of corruption and thuggery being aired in the national media. At the AWU, NSW Branch Secretary, Russ Collison, was accused of corruption and misappropriation of union funds.67The allegations against Collison included that he paid for a car for a family member and air-conditioning for his home out of union funds. He was later cleared by the union’s National Executive, Collison denouncing the charges as part of a factional ‘witch hunt’ against him.68
A slightly larger infight broke out in the CFMEU during 2001. During the year, then Assistant National Secretary of the Construction Division of the union, Alex Bukarica, with the backing of the Western Australian and Victorian Branches of the unions, mounted a takeover bid aimed at ousting National Secretary John Sutton. The ultimately unsuccessful takeover become national news when the fight was publicly aired in a Four Corners programme, when building industry hard-man, Tom Domican, appeared alongside state and national leaders of the union discussing corruption and illegality in the industry.69In a matter of weeks Tony Abbott snapped at the opportunity to malign the CFMEU and other con-struction unions and announced a Royal Commission.
supports the right of workers and their unions to engage in industrial action . . . it clearly and unequivocally rejects the instigation of violence, intimidation and destruc-tion of property, during industrial disputes72
The ‘good news’ for the year including membership growth, increased sympathy for unions as demonstrated in the NSW Labor Council’s survey, and the tang-ible benefits of belonging to a union as illustrated this year, were at times over-shadowed by the ‘bad news’. Allegations of corruption and thuggery allowed John Howard and his conservative Ministers to turn the focus of debate about indus-trial relations away from the impact of Coalition policies upon Australian work-ers and toward the spectre of ‘ugly unionism’.
CONCLUSION
While the union movement could claim some significant achievements during 2001, such as making advances in maternity protection, taken as a whole the year was a bleak one for trade unionism. The most high profile campaigns run dur-ing the year were defensive in nature, such as the campaign to rescue workers’ entitlements after the collapse of companies such as One.Tel and Ansett. These collapses and the AMWU’s campaign for Manusafe have marked protection of workers’ entitlements as a key industrial and political issue for 2002. Following the earlier lead of the ETU in Victoria, many Australian unions put bargaining fees on their industrial agendas, a move that poses some significant challenges for unions and potentially threatens the emerging focus on organising reform. Infighting in some of the large blue-collar unions spilled into the national media in 2001 amidst allegations of corruption and illegal activity. The unions did not need this bad press in the context of a federal government eager to incite anti-union feeling in the community. The anti-unions spent much of 2001 campaigning for the election of a Labor government, only later to be rejected, and implicated in the defeat, by senior Labor figures. The heartening membership figures released early in 2001 suggest that there may be ‘life in the old dog yet’. However it remains to be seen whether the growth reported in 2001 will be repeated in 2002 and 2003 as the unions feel the effects of this rather depressing year.
NOTES
1. Michael Crosby, Director ACTU Organising Centre, personal interview, 20 December 2001. 2. Crosby M, Speech to Australasian Union Organising Conference, The University of Sydney,
23 March 2001.
3. These were the latest available figures at the time of writing in December 2001.
4. ABS, Employee Earnings Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Cat. no. 63101.0, August 2001. 5. ‘Trade Union Membership and Wages Statistics’, ACTU discussion paper, ACTU Melbourne,
30 April 2001, pp. 1–2.
6. ‘Unions deliver: ABS’, Workforce, Issue 1302, 4 May 2001, p. 3.
7. ‘Survey shows majority support for unions’, Workers Online, Issue 103, 20 July 2001. 8. ‘Controversy over union support survey’, Workforce, Issue 1314, 27 July 2001, p. 3. 9. ‘ACTU plans a ‘smart’ election campaign’, Workforce, Issue 1311, 6 July 2001, p. 1. 10. Field N, Koutsoukis N, ‘Unions focus on marginal seats’, Australian Financial Review,
11. Based on contributions of 0.1% of payroll. Beazley argued that the sole purpose of AWAs was to ‘intimidate workers’. ‘Beazley tables IR plans’, Workforce, Issue 1325, 12 October 2001, p. 1.
12. Field N, Murphy K, ‘Crean sides with ACTU on IR law fight’, Australian Financial Review, 28 November 2001, p. 3.
13. ibid.
14. Lewis S, Strutt S, Field N, ‘Beattie Joins ALP push on unions’, Australian Financial Review, 5 December 2001, pp. 1, 6.
15. Joel Fitzgibbon interviewed by Mark Willacy ABC Radio, AMProgram, Tuesday 4 December 2001. Transcript at www.abc.net.au/am
16. Howard J, quoted in Cleary P, ‘First shots fired in industrial relations war’, Australian Financial Review, 24–25 November 2001, p. 5. Early indications from the ALP’s new industrial rela-tions spokesperson, McClelland, were that the ALP wouldconsider letting changes through in some areas, such as removing opposition to exemptions for small business to unfair dis-missal regulations. Murphy K, ‘Union influence under the gun’, Australian Financial Review, 26 November 2001, p. 5. McClelland later backed away from these statements telling unions that he ‘had been misquoted’. Long S, ‘Crean’s Separation Anxiety’, Australian Financial Review, 1–2 December 2001, p. 22.
17. Dean Mighell, from the CEPU Victorian Branch, flagged that the ALP and unions may need to go their ‘separate ways’; Lewis S, Field N, Allen L, ‘Crean and Unions debate the future’, Australian Financial Review, 27 November 2001, p. 3.
18. Combet G, ‘Core Values The Key To Labor Renewal’, ACTU Discussion Paper, http://www.actu.asn.au/vunions/actu/article, retrieved 17 December 2001.
19. Abbott was appointed minister in late January 2001. His speech showed a misunderstanding of key elements of the Australian system, including the nature of ambit claims. ‘Abbott reveals poor grasp of IR fundamentals’, Workplace Express, 13 February 2001.
20. CFMEU, ‘The Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry: CFMEU Statement on the Royal Commission’, CFMEU, Construction and General Division, http://www.cfmeu.asn.au/construction/press/nat/20010731_colecomm.html; Anon., ‘Building unions under the microscope’, The Age, www.theage.com.au, 26 July 2001.
21. It also followed the appearance of various leaders of the CFMEU Construction Division who, in the context of a factional struggle outlined later in the article, appeared on the ABC’s Four Corners Program, decrying the corruption in the industry and in sections of the union. ABC TV, Divided We Fall, Four Corners, Monday 21 May 2001; Mercer N, ‘Union Boss Blackmailed his way to owning 12 units’, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 May 2001.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0105/18/national/national1.html top.
22. John Sutton interviewed in Lewis P, ‘Political witch hunt’, Workers Online, Issue 103, 20 July 2001.
23. ibid.
24. ‘Cole not a merry old soul’, Workforce, Issue 1325, 12 October 2001, pp. 1, 6. 25. ‘Cole offers olive branch’, Workforce, Issue 1326, 19 October 2001, p. 1
26. Transcript of Proceedings of Building Industry Royal Commission, The Royal Commission Into The Building and Construction Industry, 14 December 2001, Accessed via ‘December 18’ News Update, Workplace Express, 18 December 2001.
27. ‘News Update’, Workplace Express,18 December 2001.
28. The two industry groups recording the increase were Metal Product, Machinery and Equipment and Other Manufacturing. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001, Industrial Disputes, Australia, Cat. no. 6321.0.
29. Kerr J, Jacobsen G, Norington B, ‘Unions lift bans in push for new talks’, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 June 2001, p. 1.
30. Michael Costa being interviewed in his last week as Labor Council Secretary in Lewis P, ‘Exit Interview’ Workers Online, Issue 112, 21 September 2001.
31. The disaffiliation came after a long-running dispute between the FBEU and the state government over death and disability compensation for members.
32. FBEU NSW, ‘Media Release re ALP disaffiliation’, 21 June 2001, http://fbeu.labor.net.au/media/
35. Office of the Prime Minister, ‘Transcript Of The Prime Minister The Hon. John Howard MP Press Conference on One.Tel’, Parliament House, Canberra, 4 June 2001,
http://www.pm.gov.au/
36. CPSU, ‘One.Tel staff deserve protection’, CPSU Media Release, 31 May 2001, http://www.cpsu.org.au/media/
37. ‘HIH workers win retrospective redundancy pay entitlement’, Workplace Express, Tuesday 22 May.
38. CPSU, ‘Paid in Full’, CPSU media release, 24 July 2001, http://www.cpsu.org.au/media/jul_sept_01/
39. Greg Combet interviewed in Lewis P, ‘Flying High’, Workers Online, Issue 118, 2 November 2001.
40. ibid.
41. ACTU, ‘Start-Up agreement for new Ansett’, ACTU,
http://www.actu.asn.au/vunions/actu/article, 20 December 2001.
42. ‘National Action Hits Manufacturing Sector’, Workers Online, Issue 81, 8 December 2001. 43. AMWU, 2001, AMWU campaign petition for entitlements, retrieved via
http://www.amwu.asn.au/ on 12 December 2001.
44. Quoted in Primrose J, ‘Rail Workers Strike for their Families’ Security’, Workers Online, Issue 102, 13 July 2001.
45. ‘Manusafe set to become Campaign 2001 plank’, Workforce, 1299, 6 April, p. 6.
46. Australian Industry Group, ‘Manusafe a flawed and damaging proposal’, AIG Factsheet, April 2001, p. 1.
47. Earning the Minister a rebuke from the Commission who suggested that they had never sug-gested that the action was illegal. Long S, Murphy K, ‘Car unions told to end their strike’, Australian Financial Review, 7 August 2001, pp. 1, 4.
48. Cameron D, ‘Minister Fails on all Counts’, The Australian, 6 Aug 2001, p. 13.
49. ‘Tristar workers go back with entitlements guaranteed’, Workplace Express, 8 August. There were a number of other significant disputes in relation to Manusafe during the year. From July, 250 workers from Maintrain in Auburn in Sydney’s west took strike action over their employer’s refusal to agree to the Manusafe demand in enterprise bargaining negotiations. After 8 weeks of strikes the parties came to an agreement in late August, with bank guaran-tee lodged with a trusguaran-tee and the protection of future long service leave entitlements through a trust fund. Dave Oliver, Assistant National Secretary of the AMWU and architect of the Manusafe claim described the outcome as ‘a terrific victory’. Maintrain EA ‘the way of the future’, AMWU, Workforce, Issue 1319, 31 August 2001; ‘Maintrain agrees to trust fund for long service’, Workplace Express, 27 August 2001.
50. ‘ACTU lodges reasonable hours claim’, Workforce, Issue 1304, 18 May, p. 2. 51. ACTU (2001), ‘Reasonable Hours Test Case Fact Sheet’,
http://www.vunions.com.au/vunions/actu. Retrieved 4 January 2002.
52. Over half of the workers undertaking these hours were non-managerial employees. ACIRRT (2001) ‘Working time arrangements in Australia: a statistical overview for the Victorian government’, Reasonable Hours Test Case, Material in Support, Appendix1, 31–32. 53. Pocock B, 2001, ‘The effect of long hours on family and community life: a survey of the
exist-ing literature’, Reasonable Hours Test Case, Material in Support, Appendix 4.
54. AiG, 2001, ‘AIRC Hours Test Case: You can’t legislate against hard work’, AiG Fact Sheet, November 2001, p. 1; ‘Employers divided over ACTU’s hours test’, Workforce, 1295, 9 March 2001, p. 1.
55. It also followed the federal government’s about-face on the issue, when on March 23 they announced a change in their position of opposing the ACTU’s claim.
56. The deal allowed for employees to take 12 weeks at full pay and the remaining 40 weeks at 60% of normal pay. Later, the NTEU negotiated a similar deal for employees of the Wollongong University Student Representative Council, see Norington, B (2001) ‘Uni lifts the standard for maternity leave’, Sydney Morning Herald, 27 December 2001, p. 3. 57. The deal extended to full and part time employees and to casuals who worked on a ‘regular
and systematic’ basis with their employer. MEU, 2001, ‘MEU Award Win’, http://www.meu.org.au/news/33.html
59. ibid.
60. Sydney City Council in a similar deal, although rejected by the MEU, offered paid maternity leave for employees in exchange for the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering. 61. ‘ACTU announces 2002 IR Agenda’, Workforce, Issue 1332, 30 November 2001, p. 3. 62. Employer groups were also vehemently opposed to the fee, the AIG arguing that it
consti-tuted ‘coercion’ of non-members. AIG, ‘Bargaining Fees for non-union members’, AIG Fact Sheet, April 2001, p. 1.
63. Finding that if the union waived the fee for members, that was a unionrather than an employer action. ‘Union bargaining fees survive crucial test’, Workforce, Issue 1325, 12 October 2001, p. 1; ‘Bargaining Fee bench throws in spanner’, Workforce, Issue 1309, 22 June, p. 5. 64. ‘Bargaining fees on hold’, Workforce, Issue 1307, 8 June 2001, p. 4.
65. AMWU and AWU in Queensland and NSW, CSPU in Victoria, SDA nationally, and even the NTEU had previously signalled interest, or had begun to pursue these clauses in agree-ments, ‘Unions jump on fees bandwagon’,Workforce, 1293, 23 Feb 2001, p. 5; ‘Freeloader Fees Get Green Light’, Workers Online, Issue 115, 12 October 2001; ‘National Council Documents: Council Decisions,’ NTEU, Melbourne, 24–25 September 2001; Robinson P, Shaw M, ‘Unions Target Free Riders’, The Age, 14 February 2001, theage.com.au 66. ‘Union bargaining fees survive crucial test’, Workforce, Issue 1325, 12 October 2001, p. 1. 67. The union’s National Secretary Terry Muscatt pursued the allegations.
68. ‘AWU exec clears Collison’, Workforce, Issue 1294, 20 March 2001, p. 1; ‘Collison: I will be cleared’, Workforce, Issue 1291, 9 Feb 2001, pp. 1, 6.
69. ABC TV, ‘Divided We Fall’, Four Corners, Monday 21 May 2001.
70. The review chaired by Tom McDonald and Joe Riordon. Field N, ‘Playing into Coalition’s Hands’ Australian Financial Review, 5 December 2001, p. 6; ‘Dear Doug, love Steve’, Workforce, Issue 1332, 30 Nov 2001.
