Towards Amalgamation

June 1992

Just as the first twenty years of the last century were vital formative years in the development of the major rail unions, in particular the AFULE, ARU and ATMOEA, and later the formation of ‘loyalist’ unions after the 1917 strike, the last 20 years of the century were equally crucial in shaping the future of the rail unions. This was a period that laid the foundation and groundwork for the historic amalgamation of the major rail unions into a strong and viable union for the twenty first century.

The amalgamation in 1993 was the culmination of major changes in the industry. It was a time of heavy rationalisation in the industry, with services that had existed for a century being wound back or closed, it was a time, with many retrenchments, where workers were caught in conflicts over demarcation and job protection. It was also a time when the former ACTU President and Prime Minister Bob Hawke had put in place a policy platform to restructure antiquated industrial awards and practices, and rejuvenate the industrial relations landscape by legislating for the creation of 20 ‘super unions’ as the basis for negotiating industrial relations in major industries. It was the era of striving for the ‘clever country’.

The union amalgamation processes that flowed from these policy initiatives were often desperate and bizarre events, as tribes sought to protect old territory and power and ideological groupings huddled around each other. The rail and bus union amalgamations were not without these power plays, their detractors and conflict. However, what resulted from the long amalgamation processes was a sensible grouping of rail unions covering most of the rail industry workforce. Unlike many of the nobbled together hybrid configurations that occurred in other industries, the rail unions managed to construct a coalition of unions, not on an ideological or political affiliation basis, but on the prize of building a strong industry union that could serve each of their traditional constituents from a stronger bargaining position. The ‘empires’ within the railways were breaking down and were largely not relevant as forces in the modern era, from a management or union perspective. The break-up of the railways through privatisation, corporatism, contracting of functions and a range of new operators in the industry, demanded strong and unified industrial representation. The testimony of the strength and wisdom of the amalgamation brokered over that time is evidenced in the almost unique position of the RTBU in the industrial landscape. Not only had the rail industry experienced radical and profound change, the general labour market and labour movement had changed. Union membership and density has steadily declined and the roles and influence of unions has been effectively challenged and diminished in many quarters. Talks around the rail union amalgamation, while having been raised previously, ironically started in earnest after the Brake Van demarcation disputes in the mid1980s. Disputes that generated considerable animosity between the two main amalgamation partners the AFULE and ARU. Most now agree that it was a necessary, and probably one of the best moves made by the unions. Former ARU Secretary, Jim Walshe, who retired to work fulltime on the amalgamation process summarises the ARU position as “we’d pretty well lost signalmen from the industry, shunters were disappearing, and guards could have gone anywhere. So we may not have been viable in the future. It was also an opportunity to be rid of the ‘filthy’ demarcation disputes that had gone on.”

The process itself involved intensive meetings between the partner unions, interstate meetings, detailed conferences with legal advisers to hammer out rules that would satisfy the various ‘tribes’, arguments and brawls to be had, political differences to assuage, agreements to be made and broken. In all, the formal process involved in the ‘making’ of the amalgamated union took some eighteen months to two years to broker. Once the amalgamation had been achieved, then began the longer process of transition and adjustment to the cultural changes required for the amalgamation ‘marriage’ to work. The end result was nonetheless a genuine ‘industrial’ amalgamation rather than a ‘political’ grouping. A brief reflection on the state of play leading to amalgamation is testimony to this assertion. The ARU in NSW was aligned to the ALP Right; while its National Office was clearly Left of Labor in its politics. Victoria was Left, Queensland was uniquely Queensland; South Australia was soft Left; Tasmania aligned to Victorian Left; while Western Australia was relatively new and with few members. The AFULE was a similarly mixed bag, and depending on who you ask, had a similar mix of Left, Right and ‘apolitical’ branches. The NUR was traditionally a conservative body, not affiliated with the ALP and eventually identifying with the soft Left of Labor on the political radar. The ATM&OEA was a peculiar entity again. In NSW they neither identified or aligned with Left or Right, but took a sectional position of looking after the ‘interests of buses and trams’. It is also generally acknowledged that some of the positions agreed across the Divisions of the new union were mistakes and could have been more carefully considered. However, with this political tapestry and various histories as the back drop, agreement was reached between the various political groupings to support each other through the amalgamation process, then sort out positions in free elections after the amalgamation. It was a genuine, if imperfect, industry amalgamation. One that has been allowed to take root and grow in its own directions. Despite protests then and now about how well the particular sectoral interests are served, the viability of all the amalgamation partners has been secured and enhanced through this historic development.

The rail unions have built and consolidated a union that despite the sea changes in the industry and labour market generally, retains a uniquely high union membership in the public and private sectors of the rail industry. Whereas the RTBU can probably claim a historical tradition of industrial moderation rather than militancy, it also retains a perception and respect as one of the more ‘powerful’ and influential unions. The troubles afflicting investment and management of the railways also uniquely affects a broad demographic of the population, rather than more isolated interest groups.

When there is a major problem on the rail network it affects young and old alike. It affects business people, millions of commuters, school children and pensioners. Thus, any action or policy position by the RTBU has the capacity to impact widely across the community. This in part accounts for media perceptions of industrial militancy within the industry and portrayals of the union often as a ‘hostage taker’ in political or community terms. It also accounts for why the RTBU is able to gain broad community support for its campaigns and positions.

The position of the RTBU is not an accident. It is partly the result of the developments and cultural evolution of the industry and its place in society. It is also more than that, the union understood that role and that history and has been able to harness both into a modern viable industrial force. The RTBU was not simply an accident of history, a ‘lucky break or fluke. The decades leading to the union amalgamation involved strategies, changes and adaptations that would allow the development to be effective.