Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 2002 18

TRADE UNIONISM IN 2001
RAE COOPER*

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 employers collapsed around them. Meanwhile some of the helmsmen of the failed companies were paid massive ‘performance’ bonuses. Thus the critical industrial
concern for workers and their trade unions in 2001 was securing, or more precisely 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 building industry with the unstated, but nonetheless clear, purpose of attacking 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, reflecting upon the ACTU’s ‘Organising 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

* Department of Work and Organisational Studies, University of Sydney. Email:
r.cooper@econ.usyd.edu.au. Many thanks to Bradon Ellem for suggestions on an earlier draft and to
the unionists who helped in researching the report, including Michael Crosby and Shannon O’Keeffe.
Errors of interpretation are of course my own.

THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VOL. 44, NO. 2, JUNE 2002, 247–262

248

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

June 2002

ongoing anti-union agenda of the Howard government. Thirdly the article examines 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 internal 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 campaigns including organising workers in residential hotels in Sydney, hospital workers in South Australia, truck drivers 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, engagement 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 occurring 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 challenge 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:
If that level of resource commitment continues then we should come clean with the
working people of Australia and tell them, sorry, we don’t represent you . . . We are
a club desperately trying to hang on to our existing members and maintain the differential between unionised and non-unionised workers.2

TRADE UNIONISM

IN

2001

249

Membership density figures for 2000, released in March 2001, were cause for

celebration in the union ranks.3 While 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.4 More 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 suggests 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 previous 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.6 Results 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 suggested 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 sentiment 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 1996.7 Secretary 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’.8 Whether 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

IN

2001:

ELECTION, REJECTION AND A

ROYAL COMMISSION

Unions spent much of 2001 on the campaign trail, with the ACTU adopting what
it called ‘smart’ election tactics.9 The union campaign focused on nine marginal

250

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

June 2002

seats, highlighting job insecurity from corporate collapses, and cuts by the Howard

government to health, education and aged care.10 Unions 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 industrial 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, guaranteeing a union majority in Party policy making forums should, they argued, be
abolished.12 The 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 ‘undemocratic’ union control over the party.14 Probably the most interesting contribution 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 credentials 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, demonstrate 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.17 ACTU 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 election, the quality of preselected candidates and the broader campaign strategy
before pointing the finger at the unions.18 The 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.
Meanwhile the Howard government committed itself to further industrial relations law reform which, if enacted, could further undermine the unions’ position. The agenda included the re-introduction of the ‘second wave’ of industrial
relations reforms such as secret ballots before strikes, changes to unfair dismissal

TRADE UNIONISM

IN

2001

251

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 understanding of the federal industrial relations system.19 However 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 industry was announced on 26 July, the Prime Minister suggested that union claims
that the move was a ‘cynical political manoeuvre’ were ‘plainly ludicrous’.20 The
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.21 John 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
The Commission’s proceedings began in Melbourne on 10 October headed
by retired Supreme Court Justice Terry Cole. Early in the proceedings Cole
further alienated unions, as well as some of the employers seeking to appear before
the Commission, when he made the disclosure of all knowledge of inappropriate conduct in the industry a condition of appearance.24 The participants raised
objections that this would make them ‘involuntary informers’ and, amid protests,
Cole later withdrew the direction.25 At the time of writing the Commission had
heard only one week of evidence. During this week the CFMEU Victorian
Construction Division Secretary, Martin Kingham, reinforced the union’s position in relation to the scope of the Commission’s inquiries by playing a video of
a fatal industrial accident on a Broadmeadows building site in 1997. Kingham
raised the ire of Commissioner Cole by standing for a minute’s silence after playing the video to pay:

252

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

June 2002

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.28 This
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 movement and the Carr Labor Government. 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.29 The relationship 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.30 One union, the Fire Brigade Employees
Union, was so angered by the government’s actions that it immediately disaffiliated from the NSW Branch of the Labor Party.31 The 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

The campaign continued well into the year including mass meetings across the
state attended by more than 200 000 union members.33 After a period of con-

TRADE UNIONISM

IN

2001

253

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 backbench, he was quickly promoted to the position of Minister for Police. The dispute 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 postAccord 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;34 this 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 entitlements. In late May, 1400 One.Tel workers were made redundant after the telecommunications company was put in the hands of administrators. The One.Tel
workers attracted huge public sympathy not simply because of their lost entitlements, but also because of the massive bonuses that the directors of the company had paid to themselves prior to the collapse.35 Adrian 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 creditor 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.’38 This 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 multiunion push to organise the call centre industry.
The entitlements of workers at Ansett were not secured so speedily. On
13 September an administrator was appointed by Air New Zealand to take over
the running of the ailing airline, and Ansett suspended all domestic and international operations. This move outraged airline workers who, in a fit of antiKiwi rage, encircled and grounded New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke’s
plane on the tarmac at Melbourne Airport. From the time of the grounding of
the airline, the future of the 16 000 direct employees of the company, along with
many thousands from other companies that directly relied upon the airline, such
as Gate Gourmet caterers and Traveland, looked grim. The entitlements of the
directly employed workers, excluding superannuation, totalled over $800 million.

254

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

June 2002

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, individual 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 including 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 condition of them buying the airline. However the ACTU and unions emphasised
that the airline could fly again without resorting to ‘cutting people’s pay.’40 In
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 employees, had the capacity for future rises and maintained the unions’ role in the negotiation of future increases.41 The 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 significant shield from the international downturn by the collapse of its major domestic 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.
A more proactive campaign around entitlements was run during the year by
the AMWU. In December 2000, rallies and meetings of the union’s members
around the country voted to make security of entitlements a key plank in the
union’s ‘Campaign 2001’ enterprise bargaining claim.42 Entitlements had become
a key issue for the union out of necessity. The collapse of enterprises in manufacturing had taken a significant toll on the job and entitlement security of
AMWU members. In the year to April 2001, insolvencies in the manufacturing
sector alone left more than $661 million owing to workers.43 The union was determined to redress this situation; NSW Secretary of the union, Paul Basitan, argued

TRADE UNIONISM

IN

2001

255

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 negotiations 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 business cash flow and increase costs to employers.46 In late July the biggest test for
the scheme was played out in a dispute at a small auto components manufacturer, 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 workers 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 intervention arguing that it demonstrated:
the lack of understanding most politicians have about the real and everyday hardships 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 concern for unions in 2002.

ACTU

CAMPAIGNS: REASONABLE HOURS AND MATERNITY RIGHTS

In May 2001 the ACTU launched the ‘reasonable working hours’ test case which
was to be the first major test case on hours since the 1948 8-hour day hearings.
Eight awards covering members of the AMWU, CFMEU, the Association of
Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA), the Australian
Workers’ Union (AWU), The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU),
The Communication, Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU) and the Shop,
Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) provided the vehicles for
the test case.50 The need for a test case arose, according to the ACTU, from the
worrying trends in hours worked by Australians. In 2000 Australia had the fastest

256

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

June 2002

growing working hours in the OECD making us the second most overworked
labour force in the OECD.51 Supporting 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.52 These trends, the ACTU argued, posed serious
problems for workers’ health, safety and their family relationships and responsibilities.53 The ACTU’s application sought a prohibition on employers requiring employees to work ‘excessive hours’ defined with reference to a number of
factors including shift times, work intensity and family and community responsibilities. 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.54 The 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 protected 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.55 Paid 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.56 The 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.57 These 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.58 There 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 concessions 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 agreement on an 18-month wage freeze.60 Nonetheless, 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

ACTU Congress 2000 endorsed unions pursuing ‘bargaining agent fees’ from
non-members who benefited from union-negotiated enterprise agreements. In

TRADE UNIONISM

IN

2001

257

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 1996.62 Vice President McIntyre rejected the challenge,
finding that the Commission had no power to remove the clauses from agreements. In October, after appeal, the Full Bench upheld McIntyre’s earlier decision, rejecting the Employment Advocate’s argument that the fees called for
employers to differentiate between union and non-union employees.63 CEPU
Victorian Secretary, Dean Mighell, greeted the Commission’s decision with glee
suggesting that the Commission had confirmed the validity of over 200 agreements that already had clauses in them.64 The 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 ‘nonunion workers who have knowingly and willingly benefited from 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 payment? 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 unionists 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 individuals to vote in meetings to endorse bargaining claims? What do these factors
mean for union resources and the democratic functioning of organisations?
More worrying are issues relating to the ‘message’ that the fees send to members and non-members alike about the purpose and nature of trade unions. While
unions have in recent years been attempting to move from a servicing and toward
an organising approach in their operations, this proposal effectively sees unions
define themselves as service-providing agencies. At the very least it allows unions

258

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

June 2002

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 workplaces with lower union penetration, the imposition of a servicing fee could seriously 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 conscripts, 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.67 The allegations
against Collison included that he paid for a car for a family member and airconditioning 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.69 In a matter of weeks
Tony Abbott snapped at the opportunity to malign the CFMEU and other construction unions and announced a Royal Commission.
A series of incidents and ever worsening factional divisions in the Victorian
Branch of the AMWU led the AMWU National Council, late in 2001, to establish an inquiry into the operation of the Branch.70 Key figures from the Victorian
‘Workers First’ leadership, including the State Secretary, Craig Johnston, are also
facing serious criminal charges relating to alleged assaults upon office workers
and property damage, after demonstrations over a dispute with a Victorian tile
manufacturer turned ugly in mid-June.71 While Johnston and his co-accused
maintained support from their factional allies in Victorian Trades Hall Council,
the ACTU has not been supportive. Greg Combet argued that the ACTU:

TRADE UNIONISM

IN

2001

259

supports the right of workers and their unions to engage in industrial action . . . it
clearly and unequivocally rejects the instigation of violence, intimidation and destruction 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 tangible benefits of belonging to a union as illustrated this year, were at times overshadowed by the ‘bad news’. Allegations of corruption and thuggery allowed John
Howard and his conservative Ministers to turn the focus of debate about industrial relations away from the impact of Coalition policies upon Australian workers 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 during 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 antiunion feeling in the community. The 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,
10 October 2001, p. 6.

260

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

June 2002

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, AM Program, 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 relations spokesperson, McClelland, were that the ALP would consider letting changes through
in some areas, such as removing opposition to exemptions for small business to unfair dismissal 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/
33. ‘Picket MPs Face More WorkCover Heat’, Workers Online, Issue 100, 29 June 2001.
34. See Ellem B (2001) ‘Trade Unionism in 2000’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(2), 211–213.

TRADE UNIONISM

IN

2001

261

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 suggested 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 guarantee lodged