The push to 'super unions' (continued)

In line with recommendations by the Hancock Committee, amalgamation procedures were eased. The Industrial Relations Act 1988 gave little scope for the amalgamation process to be delayed through the objections of others, as long as the eligibility rules of the amalgamating organisations were not extended. The process of amalgamation became even more streamlined through changes to the Act in 1990. These changes, which came into effect from February 1991, saw the amalgamation process simplified and made more flexible, enabling a merger to take place in as little as six months after the scheme of amalgamation was lodged. As the amalgamation progressed this scheme could be altered, for example to bring in new partners, without having to restart the whole process.[84]

The introduction of union federations as an optional preliminary step to amalgamation also came with the 1990 changes. Under the Act these federations were temporary bodies (up to three years) and ceased to exist if an application for amalgamation was not made within the time.[85] As a signal of intention to amalgamate, these federations were often a factor in placing unions on specific pedigree charts in Parties to the Award. Some examples of this are the unions on Chart 18 which form the Federation of Professional and Managerial Employees, or Chart 9 the National Union of Workers and the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, which form the National Federation of Workers. Others such as members of the Maritime Federation on Chart 16 correspond rationally with industry sector.

Under the changes, unions were also able to apply for a 'community of interest' declaration from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission prior to (or after) lodging the scheme for amalgamation. By this declaration, the Commission states that because the proposed amalgamation fits the criteria of the Act, it is officially supported. A community of interest may be found if members: could belong to either union; work in the same or similar occupations; work under the same award; do the same or similar work for employers in the same industry; or if their industries have a community of interest. In amalgamations where this community of interest is deemed to exist (for at least one of the amalgamating unions for any of the afore mentioned reasons) unions qualify for easier ballot requirements. These easier requirements mean that the amalgamation ballot is successful if more than 50 per cent of those who vote in each union do so for the amalgamation. Where a community of interest declaration has not been made (or applied for), the ballot is not successful unless at least 25 per cent of members of each union vote, and more than 50 per cent of voters in each union agree to the amalgamation.

In the case of small and large unions proposing to amalgamate the larger union need not hold a ballot if the smaller union is less than 25 per cent of its size. Union executives were also permitted to use union resources to run a pro-amalgamation campaign, as long as a formal resolution to do so had been made. [86]

Changes in the Act to the size requirements, coupled with this easing of amalgamation procedures, saw a large number of amalgamations between unions take place in the period 1991 to 1994. By the time that changes to the size requirement were again made to Act in 1994 (10,000 to 100 membership minimum for unions), as a result of the CAI's complaint to the ILO, the amalgamation leg of the ACTU's reorganisation campaign had almost been completed.

With politics a major influence on the restructuring, rationalisation of the union movement would prove to be no simple task. It was noted in the Australian Financial Review (10/7/1989) that 'the ACTU's strategy which envisaged reshaping Australia's 300-plus unions into 20 broad industry groupings [had] awakened many factional jealousies and rivalries, creating fears of massive blocs of Left or Right unions straddling sectors of industry'.[87] The ACTU's aim of eventual amalgamation between all unions in the metal industry[88] proved to be too big a task. Factional differences were insurmountable in uniting unions in rational industry groups. This is not to say that these differences obstructed all amalgamations - just rational industry-based ones ! Fear of 'the other side' getting too big led to a number of amalgamations between politically sympathetic unions.

Australian Trade Union Archives Home Page