Wharfies: A History of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia 1875684182

Citation preview

WHARFIES

A History of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia

WHARFIES

A History of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia

,,

MARGO BEASLEY

Halstead Press in association with

Australian National Maritime Museum

First published in 1996 by Halstead Press Pry Ltd 19a Boundary Street, Rushcutters Bay NSW

Contents 2011

in association with

Australian National MaritimeMuseum

FOREWORD vii

Darling Harbour, Sydney The Australian National Maritime Museum collects, preserves and displays historic material relating co the nation's maritime industries, and has mounted a national touring exhibition, On the Waterfront: Wkarfies, Artists, Actors, about theatre, art and film produced by waterside workers from 1946-1960. In 1996 the Museum established an appeal co save the Sydney Wharfies Mural, painted between 1953-65 at the former Waterside Workers' Federation Sussex Street headquarters (see front cover). This powerful statement of the history and philosophy of the waterfront has been donated to the Museum by the Maritime Union of Australia.

and The Maritime Union of Australia National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data

©Margo Beasley

Beasley, Margo, 1951History of the Waterside Workers' Federation

Wharfies: A of Australia.

Includes index. ISBN 1 875684

18

2

I. Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia - History 20th century. 2. Stevedores - Australia - History=- 20th century. 3. trade-unions - Stevedores - Australia - History 20th century. I. Australian National Maritime Museum. II. Tide. 331.88116238881

INTRODUCTION ix

CHAPTER ONE - Before 1902 I Wharf labouring in nineteenth century Australia Early wharf labouring organisations, The 1890 Maritime Strike, The 1890s depression, The Labor Party and William Morris Hughes, Working life CHAPTER TWO -1902-1916 21 The birth of the Watersider Workers' Federation Beasts of burden, Inching forward-Industrial life of he WWE, The first national agreement, If a man keeps a horse ... ": The 1914 award, Goodbye Billy CHAPTER THREE - 1917--1927 45 Strikes, riots and labour bureaus The 1917 General Strike, 1919, Fremantle 1919 and Bloody Sunday, Looking outward: The early 1920s, Inside the WWF in the early 1920s, The Cairns Rotary Dispute, Internal politics in the WWF: 19 26 and 1927 CHAPTER FOUR- 1928-1937 76 The 1928 strike and the Depression Nosebleed, frostbite, maggots and bee money, The Beeby award and the 1928 strike, Joe Morris resigns, The Transport Workers' Act, Cancellation of preference, Bashings, bluemetal and bullets, Slaughter on November 1st, Bombs, The Great Depression, Downhill: to 1934, Plummeting finances and membership, Dissent, The late 1930s, Jim Healy

CHAPTER FIVE 1937-1949 World War and Cold War

Designed and Produced by Maritime Heritage Press Pry Ltd 80a Queen Street, Woollahra NSW 2025

Designer: Lulu Dougherty Printed in Australia by Ligare Py Ltd Riverwood NSW

iv

104

The Pig Iron Dispute, Scabs and the Transport Workers' Act, War begins, The Stevedoring Industry Commission, The Mc©Queen Report, Waterfront work during the war, After the war, The Dutch shipping ban, Post-war the Federation, Absorbing the Permanent and Casuals' Union, 1948 and 1949, Crisis in the Stevedoring Industry Commission, The 1949 Coal Strike

in

CHAPTER SIX 19491961 Decade of confrontation

140

Banning the Communist Party, First aid, rotation of hatches and sling loads, Ted Roach goes to gaol ... again, The 1951 New Zealand waterfront lockout, Divisors and margins, Troops fly into Bowen, Women, sport and culture,

Goodbye Groupers, The Petrov Commission, The Recruitment Dispute of 1954, The Margins Dispute, The Tait Inquiry, The Hursey Case, Mechanisation, Vale Jim Healy

CHAPTER SEVEN -1961-1977 200 Containerisation and membership decline Amendments to the Stevedoring Industry Act 1961, The pensions campaign, The Woodward Inquiry, The 1965 legislation, The peace movement and Vietnam, The National Stevedoring Industry Conference: 1965-1967, Decade of change: 1967-1977, The 1970 strike, The 1974 strike, Govemment departs the industry

CHAPTER EIGHT 1977-1993 245 Industry unionism and waterfront reform The Hawke Government and the Prices and Incomes Accord, Charlie Fitzgibbon retires, Norm Docker: a year in the top job, Recession, and Tas Bull, Waterfront reform, Task Force on shore-based shipping costs, The Stevedoring Industry Review Committee and the Interstate Commission, The Interstate Commission report, The Waterfront Industry Reform Authority, The WWF transformed, Amalgamation moves, Exit Tas Bull, The Maritime Union of Australia ABBREVIATIONS 296 CHAPTER NOTES 298 INDEX 318

vi

Foreword This history of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia chronicles the union's extraordinary record of advances, defeats, restructuring and renewal. The history reflects the life of waterfront workers and their families and the hardships they endured as they established their unions from the 1870s and consolidated over the years. Although there are already several valuable works about Federation branches or important events and periods in its history, Rupert Lockwood's books in particular, this is the first national history of the union. It reflects the comradeship and solidarity which characterised the relationship between the formal structure of the union and the rank and file, and which existed among members. This bond held the organisation together in good rimes and bad, and inspired workers i.n other industries, and other countries, as they too struggled for a better life. The ninety or so years this history spans also sheds light on the history of the Australian trade union movement; no other union or group has made a greater contribution than Australian watersiders to the common endeavour to improve standards and establish the dignity of working people. None have more selflessly given assistance whenever called upon. Watersiders' reputation for generosity is legend whether the cause be a solidarity action with another union or an appeal for help to fight bush fires or flood. The wharfies have never refused anyone i.n trouble. The Waterside Workers' Federation did nor limit itself to bread and butter issues (as unsolicited advice endlessly recommended) nor did it restrict its interests to the parish pump. The union, collectively and individually, declared its right to speak and act on any question that affected its members or the community they lived in, whether it be refusal to export pig iron to Japan in 1938 or opposition to the war in Vietnam ( then Indochina) as early as 1954; on both questions its stand has been vindicated by history. As the last general secretary of the Waterside Workers' Federati@n for a short period before the establishment of the Maritime Union of Australia, I proudly recommend this story as essential reading if the Australian industrial and political scene of the last century is to be properly understood. It is also a fitting tribute to members and their families who went before. Through their foresight and sacrifice they did what all should strive to do: leave the world a better place. I thank and congratulate the author, Margo Beasley, for a thoroughly professional job performed with real commitment. Our thanks are also vii

due co the immediate past General Secretary, Tas Bull, for his research into the union's records which was of great value to the completion of this important contribution to the history of the labour movement. John Coombs Joint National Secretary Maritime Union of Australia Sydney I 996.

Introduction The history of the Waterside Workers' Federation, which is the subject of this book, is the story of a great trade union, by both Australian and international standards. My first contact with the Federation was as a little girl attending the children's art classes run by Sydney Branch in the 1950s. I am one of many whose lives were touched by the Federation in ways well beyond its primary function as an industrial organisation. Its links with the political and cultural life of this nation were deep and, like too few others, it was an organisation which revered its history, valuing it for the lessons it provided. The Federation was often vilified by its opponents for what were in fact its great strengths: its loyalty to the broad labour movement; its capacity to consistently and effectively represent its members industrially; its skill in surviving periodic and sustained attack and its assertion that unions not only have a right, but an obligation, to rake stands on issues and events of importance to the entire Australian public. Although the Federation was often accused of being unAustralian, at its core was a fierce nationalism which at times provided extraordinary moral leadership to the community at large. Its admirers are many, and as I count myself amongst them this is a partisan history. This book will not be all things to all people who are interested in the Federation's history. Its primary purpose is to provide a chronological overview of the main issues, events and characters in the union's history from its formation in 1902 up to 1993 when it amalgamated with the Seamen's Union of Australia and became the Maritime Union of Australia. One purpose of the project was to coordinate in a single volume the very numerous works done on particular aspects of the history. Many gaps have been filled but much of its content has been dictated by areas already researched. The history is generally written from a federal perspective, except when the significance of events invites a narrower focus. It does not contain, and nor could it, histories of the Federation's dozens of individual branches,

most of which are worthy of their own histories. Some ruthless decisions had to be made. Few unions arc as much the subject of anecdote and

myth, or as replete with extraordinary characters, as the Federation, but little of that kind of material appears in these pages. This is not because it was not considered worthy, on the contrary it deserves a volume of its own, but there was an overt need for a narrative history for the use of current and future members and officials. If that purpose was to be done justice there was little or no room for anything else. Thanks are due to several people for permission to quote from or viii

ix

CHAPTER

',""""eir work: John Morison from his Stories of he Waterfronts, '7"["ei from Under de Hooke, Boy Graffias fora Wharf,es },',"""","""le Bach of ace Fader.cc), Pal EIler&

ONE

Before 1902

appeared in the A, ustrattan, l hvor}C whicl be an id G eo 3ff Pryor for a cartoon ,","i, "";""o» Tanks are also ace o Ts Bolt, whoot whose

Wharf labouring in nineteenth

. . patdnSta mg research into the federal minutes of the Orga nisation, < co Id h ' anc b gen era l assistance and encouragement, this work u not ave een completed· Coom bis, for unstinting support O for the p · h ff ' to John

century Australia

l Nationalroject; U . to .tle . stalC of th e N oelIBiutlin Arc ives at the Australian niversity in lanber : ch NSW B h ff• rra, to t e o ff7tee staff in the Federal and ,v ranc o tees·{O and t J ames D rown for careful editing of the manuscript.

When working people die their lives are mosr often lost to memory. Sometimes they leave bricks and mortar, the roads or the railways they built. Traces remain of the wheelwright's arr, of the blacksmith. Bui the art of the watersider lay in his ability to stow a ship safely for sea, and of that ar nothing survives. Only the wealth that he helped to create remains, and that doesn't belong to him. 1 (Wendy Lowenstein and Tom Hills, Under the Hook. )

Margo Beasley

he activity of moving goods from ship to shore and back again has existed in Australia since Europeans colonised this continent more than two hundred years ago. Convicts and ships' crews did the work and wharves were non-existent, but the need to transfer goods was constant, as it is today. It was not until well into the nineteenth century, when convict transportation had ceased and crews were insufficient to fill the demand for wharf labour, that the concept of wharf labouring as a distinct area of work emerged. The first Australian wharf labouring unions were formed in the late nineteenth century against enormous odds; the centuries-old near slavery practiced by shipping companies, who despised the apparent threat to profits which unions represented; the constant menace of widely available non-union labour, especially in times of high unemployment when starvation was the keenest of spurs; the lack of a model in British unions; and the highly casual nature of the work, which reflected the feasts and famines of early European life in Australia and the wharf workplace. Although embryonic unions existed in a few skilled trades as early as the 1840s in Australia, their role was more that of a benefit society than an industrial organisation. But when hundreds of thousands of free immigrants arrived in the 1850s, largely because of the gold rushes, they

T

X

2

Vharfies

Before 1902

3

Early wharf labouring organisations The formal organisation of Australian wharf labourers did not begin until 1872, yet industrial relations had existed between these workers and their employers (the shipping companies and their agents) while ever the former found themselves working for the latter. Few records remain of early industrial action but in 1837 wharflabourers and seamen outfitting whaling ships in the port of Sydney combined to stop work and demand an extra one shilling a day in wages, an unsuccessful move which was condemned by the shipowners. There is also some evidence that in Western Australia, labourers employed to unload a ship struck in

1839. The Sydney Morning Herald recorded the establishment of the Sydney Wharf Labourers' Union in I 872: A meeting of wharf labourers was held at the Oriental Hotel last Tuesday night. There were between 4 and 5 hundred present. The object of the society is to benefit the conditions of the labourer socially, morally and politically. A committee was elected. The meeting adjourned to enable the committee to frame the rules •.. The utmost order and decorum prevailed and from the enthusiasm manifested there is no doubt but the society will become successful. Cargo handing at Crcular Quay in the I880s. At this stage

steam winches and cranes were

corronly used to

load and unload ships. Here. a portable mechanical winch is used in Conjunction with

shear-legs probably to lift a heavy piece

from a lluck or dray prior to loading onboard with ships' gear. (Mitchell Library)

introduced trade unionism and labour politics to the Australian colonies'. In 1850 the Operative Masons' Society was formed in Melbourne and in 1856 became the first union to achieve the eight hour day. In 1852 a branch of the British Amalgamated Society of Engineers was formed on the Frances Walker en route to Australia, by emigrating members of the British union. The new organisation was the first of what would eventually become the great federal trade unions in Australia. Australian trade unionism grew between the 1850s and 1890. In the 1870s and 1880s coherent organisations began to be built as unions affiliated with trades and labour councils, and separate colonial organisations linked in what later became federal unions. Male suffrage, the secret ballot and rhe eight hour day were achieved in Australia well before other countries and by 1890 Australian unions were more comprehensive than those elsewhere in the world.' Several well managed federal unions had been established by 1890 in the pastoral, maritime and mining industries. The most significant was the 70 000 strong Amalgamated Shearers' Union of Australasia, formed in 1886, which later became the Australian Workers' Union (AWU). Although they did nor merge into a federal union until 1902, wharf labourers, who were developing small unions in ports around the country, "were on all occasions prompt to make common cause with the pastoral workers, the miners and other maritime unions".

(Source: Sydney Morning Herold, 19 September 1872, cited in W Mitchell, 'Wharf labourers, their unionism and leadership 1872--1916", p.l6.)

Wharf labourers were able to demand better wages in boom periods, as was the case during the gold rushes of the 1850s, when ships jammed the port of Melbourne, goods lay in vast piles all over the wharves, and disorder and chaos characterised daily commerce. "Wharf porters", as they were called, suddenly found themselves in great demand and briefly made great advances on their wages and conditions, in spite of having no formal organisational structure. Not only did they gain the princely sum of 30 shillings a day, but they also achieved an effective eight hour day ( two four hour shifts with a one hour break for lunch) in 1854, before the stone masons. But the wharf labourers failed to keep their gains, as competition for the work increased from the growing numbers of unemployed British immigrants. The organisation of the maritime industry began in the 1870s and was a significant development for so-called "unskilled" workers. The first Australian wharf labourers' unions were established in Sydney and

Adelaide in 1872, at the beginning of a prosperous economic cycle, and in Melbourne a few years later. The Seamen's Union also formed in 1872. Shipping increased during the 1860s and 1870s, and as exports

4

Wharftes

5

Before 1902

exceeded imports wharves and warehouses began to be built,

necessitating a dependable source of labour to work there. Ships' crews had previously been used by shipowners to load and unload goods, but a small supply of labour (know variously as "permanent", "constant" or "weekly hire") was retained onshore for use when necessary. Casual labour, hired by agents and paid by the hour, supplemented the other two labour forces, and it was this group, whose livelihoods were most precarious, ro whom the idea of a union appealed. In 1872 the birth of the wharf labourers' union was announced in the Sydney Morning Herald with notices regarding wharf labourers' desire to gain wages of one shilling an hour (or ten shillings a day) and notifying of a meeting at the Orient Hotel "to appoint a committee to form the rules of a society".1° Casual labourers who formed the union's membership had, in prosperous periods, been able to extract superior benefits which the permanent or constant men did not even ask for. Nevertheless, eight shillings for a ten hour day was less than the eight shillings for an eight hour day paid to most other labourers at the time. The union was formed immediately after an unsuccessful strike which aimed to achieve ten shillings for a ten hour day, with ls 6d per hour for night work because the colony was "prosperous" and could thus afford the rise.11 This union was possibly the first for any unskilled labourers in Australia and was divided into two sections: the West Sydney Labouring Men's Association and the Labouring Men's Union of Circular Quay. It was re-named the Sydney Wharf Labourers' Union (SWLU) in 1882.° The union's early meetings were preoccupied with wages and conditions, learning about and establishing a functioning industrial organisation, and developing methods for excluding non-union labour. By the mid 1880s the SWLU had 2000 men enrolled and was the biggest urban union in Australia, a great tribute to its largely unskilled and

or ·THE

WHARF LABORERS UNION

JNS'l'ITU1'ED 23rd MAY, 1885.

............... Sour1t MELBOURNE:

J. C. MITCHELL, PINTER, 123 CLARENDON STREET.

illiterate membership.

The early wharf labourers' union embarked on a dispute which had wider consequences for the labour movement in 1875. They struck for ten shillings for an eight hour day and negotiations were conducted by the Trades and Labour Council which argued that although Is .3d seemed like a high hourly rate, wharf labouring work was exhausting and unreliable, and few of the union's members achieved more than three or three and a half days' work a week. The strike was defeated by nonunion labour which poured into the port. Ihe union lost on another front: because it was constituted as a riendly or benefit society (as well as an industrial organisation), the union had lent money to its members during the strike. When the union

1836

The first Melbourne

wharf Labourers' Union rule book. I 885.

Wharfies

6

Before 1902

7

Members of Che Port

An early odvertisment for wharf labourers in Port Adelaide.

tried to recover the debt, the defendants (probably incapable of repaying the sums owed) claimed the repayment was dependent upon a successful strike. The court eventually held that the combination of union and friendly society was illegal, the strike was therefore illegal, the money had therefore been lent for an illegal purpose and was thus lost. In 1881 legislation was passed under which registration and protection of union funds became a matter of law. The wharf labourers gained one shilling an hour through collective bargaining but a brief strike for 1 s 3d was again unsuccessful in 1882.'

When Newcastle wharf labourers also struck for ls 3d an hour in 1885, they were quickly replaced with non-union labour. Coal trimmers, crane men and wool pressers responded to an appeal from the wharf labourers and struck in sympathy. This action, believed to be the first "sympathy" strike in Australia, alarmed the employers who suggested reprisals. It proved unnecessary; the strike collapsed and the wharf labourers returned to work under the old conditions.

The first serious attempt at a wharf labouring organisation in Phillip Stevedores' Melbourne occurred in 1872 when Port Phillip stevedores struck against Association, outside the use of "outside" labour and the following year wharf labourers at their dubrooms in Bay Street, Port Sandridge and stevedores at Port Phillip struck successfully against the Melbourne. use of crew to unload ships. In 1874 the Port Phillip stevedores launched a co-operative, with shares for one pound to approved waterfront workers. The co-operative's purpose was to prevent port operations being run by shipping companies or their agents, and to reserve first preference for work for its members. A roster, or earnings equalisation scheme, was established and the stevedores also sought to use their own foremen or "work leaders" who would select their own teams.'

The short-lived Wharf Labourers' Union of Victoria was formed in 1880, and in 1881 the Melbourne Coal Lumpers' Union was established among the men who unloaded coal.17 The first enduring waterside workers' organisation in Melbourne was the Port Phillip Labourers' Eight Hours' Association, established in 1882, the name emphasising the importance of the shorter hours campaign. It was later changed to the Port Phillip Stevedores' Association (PPSA). In 1885 the Melbourne Wharf Labourers' Union (MWLU), for many years an entirely separate organisation to the PPSA, was formed for the purposes of initiating formal industrial action. Both the PPSA and the MWLU established branches in Gcclong during the 1880s.°

Vharfies

8

The Port Phillip Stevedores' Association was so-named to underline the perceived superior skill of stevedores who loaded ocean-going vessels, as opposed to wharf labourers, whose work on coastal and intercolonial vessels required less expertise, in the stevedores' opinion. As was the case with other waterfront unions, the PPSA's members came primarily from its local permanent community on Hobson's Bay, whose stability more readily gave rise to unionism than could more transient communities. The PPSA was a socially progressive union: it actively promoted vaccinations for its members ( the risk of contracting disease from international vessels was high) and levied them for funeral and accident funds. Additionally the PPSA modified some indignities of the pick-up, under which men assembled each day in some public place and were chosen for work by a foreman or employers' agent. It insisted that members be picked up for work at its own clubrooms and not in the street. The union also insisted that the foremen become members of the union to obviate bribery and ensure a fairer distribution of work.

Before 1902

9

fed and housed by local unionists. Unionists saw the struggle in terms of "capital versus labour" and shipowners' and employer groups demanded their own members stand firm against such solidarity. The wharf labourers returned to work on the 18th of January when all panics agreed to refer the dispute to an arbitration tribunal consisting of two union representatives, two employer representatives and an independent chairman: Professor Kernot, from the Department of Engineering at University of Melbourne. After eight days of evidence from both sides, Professor Kernot granted almost all the items the union claimed including the eight hour day, paid meal breaks, fares and waiting time, higher wages, overtime, and double pay for work on Sundays and public holidays. Coal lumpers also gained improvements. The MWLU gave Kernot an illuminated certificate expressing their gratitude for his impartiality." The Port Adelaide Workingmen's Association (PAWMA) was established in 1872 to protect the interests of wharf labourers. A

newspaper report at the time observed: From the Rules and Regulations for the Guidance and Government of the Port Phillip Stevedores' Association: Any member of the Association found guilty of broaching cargo or pillaging, upon proper representation from the employers of conviction by a court of justice, shall be summarily dealt with by the General Committee. (Source: Cited in Lockwood, Ship

to Shore, p.48.)

For some time the labouring population at Port Adelaide have been considering their position with regard to the hours of labour and the race of remuneration. The movement for altering the state of affairs has been principally amongst the class called lumpers [an old English term for wharf labourer] a set of honest. hardworking men whose occupation chiefly consists of loading and unloading vessels. Their grievances, whether imaginary or real, led them to decide upon holding a public meeting for the purpose of obtaining redress.°

The dispute which prompted the formation of the MWLU made industrial relations history in 1886, when it was resolved by the first Board of Arbitration. The strike was initially provoked by employers refusals to allow time off to attend an Eight Hours' Procession (a previously existing convention) and the union gave notice of its intention to strike over this and other issues. On New Year's Day 1886, 900 men ceased work. The Yarra shipping industry was paralysed and an anny of pickets kept non-union labour off the wharves and persuaded lorry drivers, seamen and stevedoring companies' staff not to touch black-banned cargo. The Seamen's Union and the Federated Stewards' and Cooks' Union of Australasia refused to man vessels bringing free labour to Melbourne, and the Miners' Union in Newcastle refused to supply coal for the vessels of the offending companies. Cargoes were also black-banned by wharf labourers in other ports. One "free" (non-union) labourer was thrown overboard, and 94 non-unionists brought to Melbourne from Adelaide refused to work when they arrived and were

A union was established as a result of the meeting whose objectives included assisting members to obtain a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, maintaining order and decorum among its members. and raising a benefit fund through entrance fees, subscriptions and fines. The Association was moderate, and included employers among its members, with the proviso that they should only employ other members of the Association. The PAWMA had strong control of Port Adelaide, and instructed employers to compel their workers to join the Association.' In 1887 the Association supported the Marine Officers who struck for the right to affiliate with their local labour body, the Maritime Labour

Council. Support from the wharf labourers and other unions was however insufficient and without prospect of victory the Marine Officers disaffiliated. Their action was an ominous intimation of things

to come. Wharf labourers in Brisbane began to organise in the 1870s, and

Wharfies

10

; r TT

..l,

+j:

·--r

----

. . ... • L

{

...

'l=?-

.. . -· ']

i:. 4

±

{}-

2.ms jc-; 5d

Port Melbourne (Sandndge wwn per) in 1890.

although the eight hour day was achieved by many workers in Queensland in 1876, it was not conceded by the government or the shipowners, prompting the formation of a wharf labourers' union in 1876. It struck for and achieved the eight hour day, although at the price of reduced wages. Unionism among wharf labourers in north Queensland ports developed in the late 1880s, aided by organisation among miners in those areas. The Fremantle Lumpers' Union (FLU) was born in 1889, in spite of opposition from shipowners and government representatives, but with assistance from representatives of the PAWMA. The lumpers were the first unskilled workers to be unionised in Western Australia. The FLU became one of the most powerful and active trade unions in Western Australia and worked unceasingly co form unions in ocher trades and bring about a federation of labour.27 Overall union consciousness and organisation in Australia grew throughout the 1880s and by the end of the decade all major Australian ports had some form of wharf labourers' organisation which was generally affiliated with its regional labour council. In 1884 a Maritime Council, which was a federation of all unions connected with the

Before 1902

11

shipping industry= wharf labourers, seamen, coal lumpers, cooks, stewards, draymen and trolley drivers was formed in Sydney with Trades and Labour Council support. It was however only intermittently effective.28 By the end of the 1880s the prospects for unionised wharf labourers looked good. The SWLU in particular was financially sound and charging a very solid five guineas for membership. Of the £30 000 that Australian trade unionists and others sent to support striking London dockworkers in 1890, the biggest single donation of £500 came from the SWLU. The union was making progress with industrial gains and had recruited some of the "constant" men into its ranks, reducing the threat of non-union labour.29 A high point was reached in March 1890 when a meeting was held in Sydney to bring about an all-Australian federarion of wharf labourers' unions. Delegates came from Sydney (including the Sydney Coal Lumpers), Hobart, Melbourne, Adelaide. Brisbane, the smaller ports of Newcastle, Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Launceston, and New Zealand. A mayoral reception was held, and sentiments were expressed that strikes could be avoided and councils of conciliation and arbitration formed. The proposed federation had no opportunity for life; within months the unions involved were virtually destroyed, their memberships battered by the savage series of strikes and lockouts known as the Maritime Strike of 1890. Had the federation of wharf labourers' unions occurred, its members would have numbered between 12 000 Wharf labouring unions were noted for· their members' organisational pride, a by-product of the relationship which existed between the wharves and the surrounding communities, from which wharf labourers primarily came. In the mid 1880s the Sydney Wharf Labourers' Union outshone all others in the annual Eight Hours' Procession. Two thousand wharf labourers marched and each year there was "a fine display of banners and several allegorical figures representing great discoveries or naval celebrities. The picnic of the Society is looked forward to as one of the most enjoyable festivities of the year." But it was the Port Phillip stevedor·es whose pride in themselves could not be outdone. Not only did their union have its own clubrooms containing library, reading, billiards. musical and entertainment rooms, its members conducted debates and were prominent in civic and sporting organisations, including the Port Melbourne and Williamstown football and cricket teams. The status conscious stevedores who loaded the deep sea vessels regarded themselves as a cut above those who worked on coastal ships, and on Saturday outings wore distinctive red cummerbunds so there was no mistaking their calling. (Sources: Quote fromJ Norton (ed), History of Labour Machinery, Statistics Sydney 1887, p./S, cited in W Mithell I

"Wharf Labourers, their unionism and leadership 1872-1916", pp25-26; and Lockwood, Ship to Shore, pp.75-78.)

V harfi es

12

and 15 000 (Sydney alone had 2500) and it would possibly have been

the strongest union in Australia.'

The 1890 Maritime Strike In every case the basic cause of the trouble was the same the

repudiation, by the employers in key industries through their all- Australian organisations, of the claim of trade unions to have a voice in determining the conditions of employment. "Freedom of contract" was the employers' slogan, principle of unionism" was the workers'.

"the

(Fitzpatrick B, Shor Hiscory of the Australian Labour Movement.')

The somewhat misnamed Maritime Strike of 1890 was the first phase of a series of four major and bitter industrial battles between 1890 and 1894 in which there was a determined effort to crush the early successes of the Australian trade union movement. The Maritime Strike involved waterside workers, seamen, shearers, coal miners, silver-lead miners, carters and drivers and miscellaneous trades. The second phase occurred between January and June 1891 when Queensland shearers struck against the "freedom of contract" principle. June to November 1892 saw the third phase in which the miners of Broken Hill struck or were locked out, having also been locked out for a short time in 1890. In the final phase the Queensland shearers struck again between July and September 1894 to resist a new form of "station" agreement. The scale of these industrial battles has never been repeated, but the wharf labourers' unions, whose involvement in the 1890 strike had begun from a position of optimism and strength, were almost beaten out of existence within a few short months, ending any further involvement. The Maritime Strike occurred at the beginning of a world-wide depression when gains already made by Australian unions such as the eight hour day and the "closed shop", were no longer acceptable to employers witnessing a declining market for Australian goods. There were two main causes of the strike: the Amalgamated Shearers' Union instruction to members to shear only under union (not station) agreements, related to the issue of whether transport unions (including wharf labourers) should handle black-banned wool, and the Marine Officers strike which began in Melbourne when shipowners opposed their affiliation to the Melbourne Trades Hall Council (as had happened in Adelaide in 1887).'2 The use of non-union labour on all fronts became the key to breaking the unions.

Before I902

13

Wharf labourers were already refusing to handle black-banned wool when they struck completely in support of the Marine Officers' grievances. The strike broke out on the 18th of August 1890 in Victoria. Trade ceased between Melbourne and Tasmania within two days, the latter being in a state of semi-blockade as 20 ships were laid up. Violence was inflicted on non-union labour, Melbourne was periodically without gas and coal, rioting broke out and special constables were sworn in to protect non-union labour. A permanent military force was brought in and Colonel Tom Price of the Victorian Mounted Rifles made his famous statement about strikers: "Fire low and lay them out!" By mid September the wharves were almost back to normal and the Victorian Maritime Strike Committee's novel idea to purchase a steamer as the foundation for a socialist shipping line had come to naught. Wharf labourers in Sydney struck from the 19th of August 1890. More than 4000 men engaged in shipping were involved and their numbers grew daily as more vessels came into port. Intercolonial traffic was suspended for a week but by the 11th of September black-banned wool was being shipped by non-union labour, made possible by police protection and the provision of food and accomodation. With the help of 25 striking carpenters, the unions built an alternative barracks to house and feed non-union maritime labour and help them to resist the temptation to scab. Nevertheless, the shipowners' Free Labour Bureau, which organised their employment, prevailed. When ten lorries loaded with black-banned wool were driven to the Circular Quay wharves under mounted police escort there was a confrontation. A dense crowd attempted to block access, several drivers (who were mostly employers shifting their goods) and police were injured, the Riot Act was read and mounted constables charged and scattered the mob. A similar incident

occurred in Newcastle. It was not until the 5th of November that the SWLU directed a return to work but by then many of its members had already joined the "free" labour force anyway." In Brisbane almost all work on the wharves had ceased by the 19th of August; unionists on all intercolonial steamers, wharf labourers, winchmen and all forms of shipping labour struck. The action extended to Rockhampton, Townsville, Cairns and other Queensland ports, and non-union labour fell victim to violence. Shipping resumed because there was an ample supply of non-union labour and the Brisbane Marine Officers returned to work. Their union branch was dissolved and the

strike collapsed.© Non-union labour was brought into Port Adelaide from Melbourne, because it could nor be acquired locally." As well as maritime labour, gas workers, miners and others struck. The unions were unable to control all

I4

Wharfies

the violence which broke our on the wharves, with a serious riot occurring at the port on the 29th of September. On the 10th of November, after the Marine Officers withdrew from the Melbourne Trades Hall Council. the wharf labourers formally agreed to work with non-union labour.>

The shearers were nor called out to strike until the 24th of September, to retard the shipment of wool and cause its deterioration. Within three weeks 20 000 shearers were on strike, many of whom were subsequently prosecuted by pastoral ists and imprisoned. The withdrawal of shearers from work was a turning point in the fortunes of the Maritime Strike, since the funds previously donated by working shearers had contributed substantially to keeping other striking workers going. Disintegration followed, and on the 2nd of October the shearers returned to work. There was now no discussion of the employers' right to free labour. On the 17th of October the Marine Officers agreed to disaffiliate from the Melbourne Trades Hall Council and returned to work. Although the strike lingered on in places, funds were exhausted and men from various unions broke away and returned to work on the employers' terms. Both the unions and the employers were highly organised during the Maritime Strike. The strike was directed mainly by the Labour Defence Committee from Sydney, where at the strike's height an lntercolonial Trade Union Congress was held. The SWLU was prominent in both the Defence Committee and the Congress, and thousands of pounds in donations poured into the Committee from British unions, private donors and trade unions in other colonies. There were mass meetings and demonstrations, in one of which 10 000 unionists and 44 organisations took part. Two thousand wharf labourers were the largest group in the march. At the beginning of the strike the SWLU had been amply financed, had paid its members one pound a week in strike pay and had organised 445 pickets a day who worked five hour shifts.® But the strike had the effect of heightening unity among shipowners and other employers. An Albury conference of steamship owners and other industry leaders refused to supply wool cargoes to employers who did not unite with their general aims, and also undertook that no nonunion labour would be discharged after the strike. Meetings were held in major cities and when shipowners and other employers assembled in Sydney, the stock exchange was closed to ensure attendance. On the 10th of September the Australian Employers' Conference was attended by intercolonial shipowners, colliery owners and other employer organisations. !rs main purpose was to sec that ships would be loaded and unloaded. In this the employers were successful, with the assistance

Before 1902

IS

of the New South Wales Government which fenced in the wharves and enrolled hundreds of special constables to defend non-unionists, and from that time the employers controlled the Sydney waterfront by using non-union labour. The chief factor in the defeat of the unions in 1890 was not strategic error, but as was so often repeated in the future, the availability of an otherwise unemployed labour force. Desperate for work, the unemployed betrayed the aspirations of members of their own class. As the depression deepened, there were plenty of non-unionists to take up the small amount of work available. Wharf labourers' unions were severely weakened by the defeat; wages were reduced, long-enforced conditions fell into disuse; and most disastrously the employers gained the freedom to use non-union labour. A week after the strike's end a meeting of the SWLU was a stark contrast to the union's pre-strike circumstances. Where formerly it had nearly 2000 financial members anticipating full employment at increased rates for reduced hours, its membership was now splintered with at least 800 former members debarred from the union because they had worked with non-union labour. Another group had worked away from the wharves and had been issued with "white books" which showed they were not blacklegs. This group was not entitled to strike pay but there were suspicions that some had managed to get it. The most steadfast group (those who existed only on strike pay), which had had the highest union consciousness and bitterly opposed disloyalty, was the smallest. The union's five guinea membership fee quickly slipped to a paltry one shilling. The SWLU's biggest impediment to survival in the ensuing years was that those members most loyal to its existence were now the least likely wharf labourers to get work and they also opposed membership for those who had worked during the strike, further reducing union numbers. As a

member named Riley put it at the time: During the last three months there was a crowd of men fattening while the rest starved. Let them starve now .... Every man who worked against us in the struggle had worked against our wives and children. No man who had been blacklegging on the wharves should be admitted for three months.

The 1890s depression The 1890 strike was followed by a severe depression during which all

main exports= wool, wheat, metals and minerals declined, further reducing employment for waterside workers. The SWLU retained only about 100 members yet apart from a period in 1892, managed to

Wharfies

I6

continue regular meetings. The shipowners' labour bureau maintained a monopoly on wharf work (some SWLU members urged its recognition), victimisation for involvement in the strike was rife, and financial distress was common. Nevertheless, SWLU delegates still attended the Trades and Labour Council and enthusiasm continued for the Eight Hours' Procession. Funds occasionally allowed for brief employment of a secretary or organiser. Assistance in the form of soup, encouragement, and a school room for meetings came. from the Anglican Archdeacon, Reverend J D Langley. In 1896 the SWLU decided to admit any man working on the wharves, irrespective of his loyalties, and a few delegates appeared on some of the wharves. Yet unemployment and the labour bureau (bureaus also existed on the wharves in Brisbane, Newcastle, Melbourne and Fremantle) continued to inhibit the union's recovery because the demand for work was great and non-union labour was favoured.'

The Melbourne Wharf Labourers and the Port Phillip Stevedores were also nearly battered out of existence by the strike and the depression. The unions showed the "courage and dedication of a band of men who refused to bow before physical attacks, victimisation and the

threat of empty family larders ...'.Non-union labour was subjected to constant and extreme pressure from both the MWLU and the PPSA. Radical socialists appeared among the latter, upsetting local conservatives when they flew the red flag on Port Melbourne's Station Pier and took up collections for a socialist Australia. Western Australia escaped the worst of the 1890s depression. Owing to gold rushes, government expansion and increased population, unskilled labour was in demand in the port of Fremantle and wage increases were easy to attain. But the good times did not last and the worst blows to Fremantle Lumpers came as recovery started everywhere

else. In 1899 there was a six week dispute when the Western Australian Steamship Owners' Association announced a reduction in wages and overtime rares which pushed conditions back co those of the 1880s. The FLU struck and the port was brought co a standstill when blackleg labour was either prevented from working or won over to the lumpers' cause. Ocher workers were sacked but there was wide support for the striking lumpers in the community and other unionists stopped work in support. When more non-union labour was brought in from Adelaide, 400 men stormed che jetty, cook the police by surprise and chased the blacklegs out of port, cheered on by a crowd of onlookers. A similar incident occurred with a ship called the Karlsruhe and blood flowed as stones, missiles and blows were exchanged. The lumpers ultimately lost the dispute and returned to work on reduced wages."

Before 1902

17

The Labor Party and William Morris Hughes The Australian Labor Party (ALP) was formed by the labour movement in 1891 as a response to industrial defeat, on the grounds that unions had to find a place in government if they were to survive. In 1894 William "Billy" Morris Hughes, who was to become a highly significant figure in Australian history, was elected as the Labour candidate for the New South Wales State seat of Lang in Sydney, an electorate which cook in wharf labouring communities. The able and energetic Hughes' political ambitions were assisted by his subsequent involvement in industrial organisations, most notably with chat of the wharf labourers. Hughes had been an organiser for the shearers' union, work which he combined with political activities, and was associated with the foundation of the Hotel, Club and Restaurant Employees' Union. A sometime small shopkeeper, Hughes was a member of the Socialist League until 1898 when he became a Fabian Socialist, and was a fervent believer in compulsory arbitration and the superiority of the ballot box over direct action co win industrial improvements. In 1896, he made his first public appearance for the SWLU on a stage with ocher prominent people, an unsuccessful occasion designed to revive the union's fortunes.° It was reputedly John Kilberg ("Manchester Jack"), the publican of Mann's Hotel on the comer of Kent and Grosvenor Streets, who suggested to Hughes that he could help the ailing SWLU. Hughes became the Union's Secretary in 1899. Such associations between politicians and unions were common at the time. For Hughes there were

distinct advantages in representing industrially many of the people he already represented politically. The union gained the "respectability" a parliamentarian could provide, as well as his skill, experience and access to power.' An "inaugural" meeting of the SWLU was held in 1899, with a triumphal appearance from its new Secretary. On the stage with Hughes were notables including the Premier W J Lyne, the Minister for Works, several other parliamentarians, Archdeacon Langley and the Reverend Father Aubrey.®

Hughes' accession to the leadership of the Sydney wharf labourers coincided with substantial improvements in the economy which can only have assisted his industrial advocacy. In 1899 shipowners' earnings returned to pre--1890 levels, the wharves were busy and labour was at last again in demand.51 Hughes usually reached agreement with the employers without going to court and by 1900 there was general

uniformity of wages and conditions among the shipping companies in Sydney. In 1900 the labour bureau was abolished and Hughes made certain there was sufficient labour to meet the companies' demands by

Vharfies

18

insisting the SWLU undertake that no member would leave the port and work outside Sydney.' Having survived a decade of extreme privation watersiders perhaps regarded this restriction as preferable to no work at all. Newcastle wharf labourers recovered soon after Sydney's and having worked unlimited hours for two pounds a week, struck twice in 1900. They gained 42 shillings for 60 hours, then they achieved the Sydney rate of one shilling an hour and ls 6d for overtime. The Hunter River Steamship Company went on the attack in 1902, proposing to hire constant men at 42 shillings for 60 hours, co be worked at any time of

the day or night. Non-union labour was brought in and housed in filthy sheds. The blacklegs got no sympathy - even the Salvation Army would not assist chem. The Newcastle union sought help from the sympethetic SWLU, but Hughes stepped in and blocked assistance, arguing it might prejudice a Sydney case. The Newcastle case of 1902 was the first heard in the New South Wales Arbitration Court and the Newcastle union achieved what it wanted: including one shilling an hour, the eight hour day and preference for unionists. Hughes appeared for the SWLU later in the year gaining ls 3d per hour and preference for unionists in the new award.

Working life Whatever apparent gains wharf labouring unions achieved as the 1890s depression lifted, they belied the appalling working conditions on the wharves. Shipping companies occupied a uniquely favourable position in Australia, which relied entirely on them for trade, with the result that the industry was enormously profitable. There was no opposition or government competition and virtually no government control of the industry. This led to extreme abuses of power such as press-ganging and shanghaiing, and a callous neglect of the safety of wharf labourers and crews. The injury rate among wharf labourers was so high that in some instances special relationships, in the form of donations and board membership, developed with the hospitals and clinics which treated them.57 It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that legislation to curb the worst excesses of the industry was introduced, but little of it benefited the men on the wharves.' The shipping industry grew in the nineteenth century and Australian companies with headquarters in Sydney and Melbourne were established: the Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company, the Adelaide Steamship Company, the Newcastle Company, the Hunter River

Company, the Clarence, Richmond and Mcleay River Navigation

Before 1902

19

Company, the Illawarra Company, the Western Steam Navigation Company, Huddart Parker, the Australian Steam Navigation Company, Mcllwraith McEachern, the Melbourne Coal Supply and Engineering Company, and Burns Philp and Company. The Australian companies plied the coastal and intercolonial trade and routes between Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. British lines, whose fortunes had been built long before on the slave trade, along with French, German, Scandinavian and many other companies, carried the trade to and from the European ports.° By the end of the nineteenth century the Australian Steamship Owners' Federation (SSOF) had been formed and it became a powerful influence in federal and state politics.® Most Australian wharves were privately owned by the shipping companies and as trade increased in the nineteenth cenrury some improvements, of necessity, were made. Public works also began to contribute to the infrastructure on which shipping relied. For instance in the last decade of the nineteenth century the Western Australian Government constructed a new deepwater port in Fremantle to serve the town and the state. Fremantle became an increasingly busy port as a result.® In New South Wales the Harbour Trust Act of 1900 gave the State Government control of the Port of Sydney. Extensive improvements were made to wharves and properties, which were so neglected and insanitary that the rats who lived in and around them were responsible for outbreaks of bubonic plague. An expensive ratproof sea wall was built and the wharves, jetties, warehouses and offices were leased back to the shipping companies. The safety and health of wharf labourers were not factors considered in these improvements. They still had to battle for the mosr basic of working conditions; they had no toilers, shelter sheds, transport. or even water taps, and in Sydney the union made frequent and unsuccessful deputations to shipping companies to request such rudimentary amenities.® In busy seasons, especially the wool season. continuous exhausting shifts of 30 hours and more, which could begin and end at any time, were not uncommon. In winter wharf labourers could be without work or income for weeks on end. In any season they could wait hours without shelter for work. Severe health problems were endemic among workers in the industry. A key factor in preventing reform was the pick-up or "bull" system, which pitted wharf labourers against each other. Under this system, men assembled in a public place to be chosen for the day's work by foremen or stevedoring agents of the shipping companies. Favourites for work were the "bulls", men of such physical strength that they could work longer and harder than the others. Such a system also favoured compliant and docile workers and facilitated

20

Vharfies

discrimination against militant or troublesome men who might agitate for improved conditions. Bribery for work was another result. Wharf labouring work at the turn of the century was hard, unpleasant, dangerous and irregular; it was not for nothing that the wharf area in the Port of Sydney which stretched from Circular Quay to Walsh Bay, Millers Point and Darling Harbour was known as "The Hungry Mile". Nevertheless men were attracted to waterside work because there was always the chance of a casual job. Although the brute labouring (sometimes up to 48 hours straight) required days and nights of rest for recovery it was possible to earn in two or three days what might otherwise rake a week. There were also less tangible benefits associated with the work. There were diverse cargoes and great variety in wharf labouring, it was done outdoors which was often preferred to inside work, and there was pleasure in working close to the sea and around ships and crews from foreign places. Perhaps more importantly, great mateship and camaraderie developed in the close dependence fostered by brutal working conditions, and in the long waiting periods between jobs.65 Additionally, beyond homes and pubs, the "the only significant unifying structure that bound the community together ( the men more especially) was the union". 66 The staunch fraternity and militancy which developed in these circumstances became the hallmarks of wharf labouring unionism in twentieth century Australia.

CHAPTER

TWO

1902-1916 The birth of the Waterside Workers' Federation The Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia was bom in a political environment, sponsored and led by politicians and was destined to become the nation's most politicised trade union. (Source: Rupert Lockwood, Ship to Shore.')

B

etween 1902 and 1916 wharf labourers' unions in ports around Australia developed into a fully fledged national organisation.

The members were able to run their union for themselves and set their own political and industrial agendas. When the Australian colonies federated in 1901, a Commonwealth Arbitration Court was widely anticipated. (Ir was created in 1904.) Many unions sought federation with organisations in other states to capitalise on the expected benefits and economies of scale which national arbitration might bring. Employer groups, including shipping companies whose headquarters were in Melbourne, were also establishing national organisations. With the potential for a branch in every port in the country, and most wharf labouring unions largely recovered from the devastation of the 1890s, wharf labourers' unions were well-placed to federate. Already Secretary of the Sydney Wharf Labourers' Union, and

now a Federal Member of Parliament, Hughes became the driving force behind the establishment of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia (WWF) in 1902. The establishment of a national organisation and the travel it entailed posed financial problems for unions, but Hughes had a frugal and effective scheme for the WWF. The new Federal Parliament met in the temporary national capital of Melbourne, so he prevailed upon some

22

Vharfies

Federal Labor politicians ( who travelled for free and some of whom counted wharf labourers among their consituents) to make up the union's governing body. The WWF's Federal Council. Oater called the Committee of Management) would meet while Parliament was in session in Melbourne. The politicians communicated decisions to WWF members when they returned to their electorates. Such arrangements were not uncommon at the time and reflected the symbiotic relationship between trade unions and the young Labor Party. Unions anticipated improvements in working class life through legislative change sponsored by politicians, and politicians were exempt from the victimisation commonly experienced by on-the-job union officials. After discussions with Joe Morris, Secretary of the Port Phillip Stevedores' Association, the WWF was officially formed in February 1902, at a meeting chaired by Hughes in Parliament House in Melbourne. Morris was the only non-politician present and the only official with wharf labouring experience. Those present elected themselves the WWF's first Executive Officers. The new trade union officials were Andrew Fisher, who represented Wide Bay in Queensland (and who would become the sixth, eighth and tenth Prime Minister of Australia between 1908 and 1915), F W Bamford who represented Herbert in Queensland, Queensland Senator Higgs, and Western Australian Senator Hugh De Largie. Hughes became the WWF's first President and Morris took on the time-consuming and initially honorary position of Secretary. As always Hughes had big plans, and by the end of the year Watkins, After a lockout, Wallaroo wharf labourers decided to form a union at a public meeting held at Malcolm's Auction Mart on the 27th of May 1902. Among wharf labourers' complaints was that there was no regular pay day; the Howard Smiths man, one Mr Davis, flew a flag from a large pole at his office when he had decided he would pay wharf labourers the wages they were owed. Howard Smiths Ltd did the bulk of the stevedoring work at the port at th e time, with boats carrying coal and coke for the Wallaroo and Moonta Mining Company. The Wallaroo Wharf Labourers' Union was formed on the 9th of June 1902 and the local th Ca_ olic school allowed the wharf labourers to use a schoolroom for free, "providing the union lit and put out the lights and provided the kerosene". The meeting decided unanimously th; ibt h. Y at the entrance fee to the union would be 2s 6d and contributions nine shillings per Week

"until the union became a bit stronger." A long day was declared to be 7 ~m to_ 5 pm, with dinner from 12 to I pm and smokos in the morning and afternoon. tito midnight was to be paid at two shillings per hour and after I pm on Saturday ver me at five shillings per hour. (Source: Maritime Worker, II November I968, p.8.)

1902-1916

23

t.; '

,

5-=

± Tucker, O'Keefe, Batchelor and Stewart, (all either Senators or Members of the House of Representatives from waterfront electorates) had been added to the Federal Council. A typewriter was hired, on approval at first in case it did not work. Morris was paid 1 Os a week and preliminary exchanges had begun with the Australasian Steamship Owners' Federation. Hughes' ambitious expectation of 6300 members and ten or so branches had not quite been realised, but along with Sydney and Port Phillip, port unions in Brisbane and Bowen had joined, the Melbourne Wharf Labourers' Union intended to, and Port Adelaide and Hobart were considering their options. Cooktown declined. In 1903 a national journal, the Waterside Worker's Gazette, was first published. In the same year, the highly significant Transfer Rule was introduced, which allowed the movement of WWF members between branches free of charge, thus lessening the employers' use of non-union men when labour was short. The Federation registered under the Federal Arbitration Act in 1906 and the Federal Council met about six times a year, as Parliamentary sittings allowed. In J 911 the predominance of politicians on the WWF was lessened by the introduction of the first Federal Conference, which consisted of wharf labourer delegates from the branches. Signs of respectability and permanence began to appear; a membership medal was struck in 1913 and in 1914 for the first time the Federation rented

Queen's Wharf. Launceston, 1903.

Wharfies

24

·7'The ·•;;- •

1

,

wasia®Workers 'gt Gazette

t

In 1903 a national journal, the Waterside Worker's Gazette, which always ran at a loss, was first 1 published. The Gazette was weekly at first and was subsequently produced at differing intervals, depending on circumstances, until 1914. Billy Hughes wrote and produced most of it himself and it carried information and reports on arbitration, disputes, conferences and rules changes, as well as articles about the hardship of wharf labourers' lives. The Gazette also ran flattering pieces about the President of the Waterside Workers' Federation as this extract from 1907 shows:

-=

politics, sailed for London by the S.S. Orient on part in the great Navigation Conference as one of the \ Commonwealth's representatives. That he is not a ~ ...---,, ;;LT"TV"practical seaman everyone is aware but he knows pcsT FREE. ,~ EXTIVd cs ,,_861 George+st., Sydne> N.S.W.Bookstall CO»< .-v-"f" -- as much of the subject as any layman may ever hope to learn, and his wide knowledge and training in waterside and sea affairs, in conjunction with his skills as a barnster and his experience on conferences, should render his visit to Europe of the utmost benefit to Australasian interests and to seamen in general.

-uo.ooo eopies Sold Saturday 9th Feb., to take The American Success.

"RJVERFALL" a

\

~--~ -~-- ~-·- ""-------

--------

(Source Mitchell, 'Wharf labourers, their unionism and leadership 1872-1916", pp.229-231; quote from

25

1902-1916

the early years of the century. Infrequent contact with far-flung ports was another difficulty, some of them being more than 3000 kilometres from Melbourne, and accessible only by sea. Morris did make a reportedly successful tour by train to the Queensland branches in 1909, but organising was usually a local matter.5 About thirty port unions had affiliated with the WWF by 1916 including Sydney, Lismore, Wollongong, Newcastle, Port Phillip, Melbourne, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Wallaroo, Brisbane,

Rockhampton,

Bundaberg,

Maryborough,

Mackay,

Geraldton,

Devonport, Launceston, Beauty Point (a sub-branch of Launceston), Strahan, Burnie and Stanley. Bunbury joined in 1903, withdrew in 1908 and later returned. Fremantle and Albany joined in 1913 and the Port Adelaide Workingmen's Association in 1915.6 Growth was not always straightforward. The large MWLU withdrew between 1906 and 1910. The Sydney Coal Lumpers attempted to join in 1909 but the move was thwarted because its members would not accept the Transfer Rule, necessary for the WWF's registration7 (indeed, the Sydney Coal Lumpers never joined the Federation). Important unions in Fremantle and Port Adelaide prevaricated. Industrial problems in areas far from Melbourne, like north Queensland and Western Australia, were too remote for any Federal influence and local conditions differed enormously from one side of the continent to the other. The most important branch, Sydney, was strong, independently minded and often antagonistic towards the federal body, particularly on matters of trade union principle. Several times it threatened to withdraw from the Federation, only to be restrained by Hughes. Hughes also wanted to form a federation of transport workers unions.

Waterside Worker's Gazette, 16 February 1907, p. I.)

its own rooms in the Market Building, William Street, Melbourne, abandoning the makeshift arrangements of meeting in spare rooms at Parliament House or in hotels.4 It was branches and members the WWF needed above all else if it was to develop as an industrial force. Until 1914 the federal organisation's relationship with many of its branches was tenuous. Generally speaking, the smaller, weaker branches needed the Federation more than larger branches or port unions, which often felt they could fend better for themselves, without the restrictions the federal organisation would place on their actions, and avoiding the financial burden of sustentation dues. The federal union was usually superfluous anyway to the local agreements most branches had with employers ilil

t·,

., .. s 5,

.: ·,' "\f

t...:(,;:

or6''5,

-

'

'

~

#

·

..,I

s v,

,..

•.

' ~. '

ts

'

.,.

Port Phillip 5a ..s; Stevedores dub '

~

'a.

f,

' BE

picnic at Bacchus Marsh in 1908.

Wharfies

26

1902-1916

27

After a Sydney branch strike in 1908 he formed a Transport Workers' Council which consisted of unions affected by the strike, and made himself President. He intended to form a larger organisation which would include members of the Officers' Guild, engineers, seamen, and carters and drivers, and expected that this body would extend to states beyond New South Wales, and to New Zealand. A Transport Workers' Federation (TWF) was formed at a conference in Melbourne in 1909.1t included the Carters' and Drivers' Federation which Hughes also represented, and became the congress which prevented the spread of the miners' strike that year to the Sydney waterfront. Hughes used the TWF to restrain the Sydney branch on other occasions but it was never a vehicle for improved conditions for its members. The TWF was unable to enlist the most vital transport union, the Seamen's Union, hence its weakness.9

Beasts of burden The pick-up was at the wharf gate; if you missed one job you went to another, often to get knocked back there. Pick-ups were sometimes in the rain, and sickness was inevitable. I got pneumonia when I was 18. A lot of wharfies who should be here are in the cemetery, killed by pneumonia, avoidable accidents, overstrain and shipowners' neglect. If we got wringing wet in the rain, the boss would tell us to keep on working, and sack us if we knocked off. Owners when it suited them, however, would close the job and we would go home with plenty of water but little pay in our pockets. The bull pick-up was chaos. The oil would be spread that there was a job at 8 am. We'd tell mates, and all go down. Then the oil would come through that the job wouldn't be on till 1 pm. Then perhaps it wouldn't be on till 6 pm or perhaps there'd be no job at all, or perhaps, after waiting round all day and part of the night, we'd gee a job to work through for 24 hours= a long rime [ram home, bed and meal table. (Source: Don Peal in "Pioneers recall fight to end wharf slavery", Maritme Worker.')

Wharf labouring conditions differed throughout Australia, depending on climatic variations, geographic location, types of cargo, demand for labour, the availability of non-union labour and relationships with shipping companies or their stevedoring agents. But from the extreme hear and tropical produce of north Queensland, to the apples of Tasmanian winters, and all the other cargoes all along the coasts from

wg»

a,

y·an1c4,s',, Top: Early photograph of a Townsville Branch float, probably for an Eight Hours Day procession. Above: Brisbane WWF Branch Executive 1908.

28

Wharfies

wool and wheat to coal, sulphur, timber, carbon black, hides, meat and passenger goods, there was a universality in the great hardship of the conditions under which waterside workers laboured. Theirs was nothing short of back-breaking toil. with the added drawbacks that it was uncertain, irregular, casual, and open to victimisation. Bags of potatoes, blood manure and bone dust could weigh between 180 pounds (76 kilograms) and 336 pounds (152 kilograms). If in coarse bags, blood manure could be released in the atmosphere causing nausea and the spitting of blood for days afterwards. Overfilled bags were called "bed bugs" because of their propensity to land a man in hospital. Backs, shoulders, legs and internal organs were injured from the excessive hours, speeds and weights." The most well documented case about wharf labouring conditions early this century is that of bagged wheat, a cargo whose movement relied on hardship and exploitation of barbaric intensity. At every stage in the movement of bagged wheat vested interest took precedence over health and safety: shipowners cared only for their profits, farmers paid freight by the bag so they made the bags as heavy as they could possibly be, and wharf labourers competed with each other for the privilege of shifting the wheat, to the detriment of their health and safety. In 1904 the Sydney branch had unsuccessfully pressed for a weight limit of no more than 150 pounds (68 kilograms) per bag of wheat. Theoretically the bags held about 240 pounds (109 kilograms) but the branch had weighed 24 bags and found the average to be about 395 pounds (179 kilograms) because the bags had been stretched, re-sewn, or substituted with larger coffee bags to increase their capacity. The men carried these weights, on their backs, 20-25 yards (18--23 metres) from dray to shed, then threw the bag from their shoulders onto a stack, ensuring it was placed in the correct position, until the stack reached about one and a half metres. Then two, three, or four men fed the bags onto an elevator which carried them to the main stack in the shed. The bags were then humped on the wharf labourers' backs to the ship's deck and sent by chute to the hold where two men upended them and four men on each side of the hold carried the bags away and stowed them. The bag had to be slung quickly onto the shoulder of each man to avoid the next bag which was racing down the chute landing on his back. When beginning the stow, the labourers carried the bags 40--50 feet (12-15 metres), starting at the farthest point of the hold and working back. The member for Darling Harbour in Sydney, W M Daley, chaired a select committee enquiring into the Grain Sacks Regulation Bill in 1906. During evidence the Secretary of the WWF's Sydney bramoh,

1902-1916

29

· •

r2,»

» • r Left Waterside worker 'necking' a bag of flour. Extraordinary weights were lifted

by wharf labourers using this method, which was in use until the late 1960s. Below: 'Shooting'

wheat into the hold of S.S. Eurypides at Darling Harbour in 1927, (or manual stowing on the backs of wharf labourers.

mm In Fitzgibbon's view the Federation lost control of the pensions campaign when it rejected the permanency proposal, because it looked like a good offer." This loss of initiative was exacerbated when three branches Sydney, Melbourne and Port Kembla= went against

1961-1977

213

All the world loves a lover, but recently-engaged William McMahon, the Federal Minister for Labor and National Service, still rates a zero from the wharfies. They're particularly bitter over his charges that the Waterside Workers' Federation has opened the waterfront to criminals. It turns out that, in fact, the Union has found wharf jobs for quite a few ex-convicts as a direct result of

representations by parole officers of the New South Wales Prisons Department Other industries wouldn't have them and the waterfront was their last chance of getting honest work. One classic

example was Jewey Freeman, who served 26 years for his part in the 1917 Eveleigh Workshops payroll hold-up. A job on the wharves saved him from dying in prison and he spent the rest of his life as a wharfie - with an exemplary record. (Source: "Inside Politics", Sydney Sunday Mirror, cited in the Maritime Worker, IO November 1965, p.2.) Federal advice and held protest stoppages over the war in Vietnam.

Fitzgibbon said: As much as I might enjoin with the principle involved, it is true in my opinion that we have never regained the initiative that was taken from us at that time. It gave the enemies of the Federation the chance to move up and move the dispute from where it lay. It gave the employers the chance to come in with their permanency proposals which they knew we would not accept' He warned that the industry was in a period of change and that the Federal Council had to provide leadership which would adequately protect the union and its members for the future. The Federal Council was convinced that the employers, the ASIA and the government had joined together to attack the Federation and that "their intention is to take away from this union its ability to protect its members".

The 1965 legislation Within days of Fitzgibbon's observations, and before the Woodward Inquiry was complete, the government enacted new and draconian amendments to the Stevedoring Industry Act. The chief weapon in these amendments was new legal machinery which could deregister the union in the event of its conduct (or that of a substantial number of its members) hindering an achievement of an object of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, or overseas or interstate trade or commerce. If deregistration occurred new unions would be registered in the WWF's place. The legislation also transferred the WWF's right to recruit labour to the ASIA, and widened the Authority's ability to register and deregister men with criminal records. The WWF was subject to fines of

214

Australian-borr leader of the US International Longshoremen's and

Warehousemen's Union (ILWU) Harry Bridges (left), with

WWF General Secretary Charlie Fitzgibbon and Sid

Jones. Sydney Branch First Aid Secretary

during Bridges' visit in 1967,

Wharfies

£1000 for the union, or £100 or six months gaol for an individual, for non-compliance with the Authority's choice of men to be admitted to 36 the union. Jr was the most drastic industrial legislation since the 1949 National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act" and it rapidly brought the WWF to heel. The WWF had complained that prior to the legislation the minister had made erroneous claims about the number of criminals working on the wharves, and the government and the ASIA had provided ( illegally, it was asserted) police records to the employers, thus giving them confidential information unavailable to any other employer in the

country. The union also regarded the minister's attack on the political allegiances of it officers as gross interference.In introducing the Bill to Parliament, the minister had made much of communist influence in the WWE in the Sydney and Melbourne branches, as well as declaring that real power was wielded by the three federal officials who were communists: Assistant General Secretary Ted Roach; Industrial Officer Norm Docker; and Federal Organiser Maurie Wallington. His implication was that communist influence, particularly at the federal level, was the root cause of the high degree of industrial disputation. But by this stage such communist influence as existed in the WWF was factionally divided and could not be relied on for a uniform position on WWF policy. After the Sino-Soviet split in the late 1950s Australian supporters of the Chinese line, so-called Maoists, split from the Communist Party of Australia and formed an alternative party. The main effects of this split on the WWF were in Melbourne Branch, where Branch Secretary Ted Bull became a

1961-1977

215

Maoist as did a number of branch officials and activist members

including Vigilance Officer and Federal Councillor Lew Hillier. The Maoists were often at odds with federal policy. With the exception of Sydney and Port Kembla, where CPA influence was constant, other WWF branches had only occasional Maoist or CPA officials. Later, some communist officials in the Sydney Branch split from the CPA when the Socialist Party of Australia (SPA) was formed in 1971 after the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.° The invasion prompted a crisis in the WWF's Federal Council which protested by cable to the Soviet Union. This action was not supported by Sydney Branch Secretary Tom Nelson and four other federal councillors. Nelson, who argued there must have been legitimate reasons for the invasion, personally cabled the Soviet Union to dissociate himself from the WWF protest. The Communist Party splits resulted in a WWF Federal Council which was a mix of political alignments including Labor Party, nonparty, Maoist, CPA and later, SPA. Fitzgibbon exhibited no interest in attacking communists of any faction, any more than any other group if they caused internal political problems in the Federation. But in a rare example of assigning blame, he revealed to federal council that it was Sydney Branch he held largely responsible for the legislative predicament in which the WWF now found itself. Apart from humiliations early in his period of leadership, some Sydney members had also caused problems after the setting up of the Industrial Relations Committees, agreement to which had allowed the 1963 victory on long service leave entitlements. The Committees were successfully established in Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Fremantle but Fitzgibbon had come from the Sydney meeting with "the worst feeling I have experienced as a trade union official". An official of the Sydney Three memorials were dedicated to Jim Healy in 1965. The Jim Healy Memorial Folk Song Competition, sponsored by the Sydney Branch of the Waterside Workers' Federation was won by Merv Lilley (now a well known poet) of Perth for his song 'Tue Anti-Fouling Roll". First prize was C75. A Jim Healy Memorial Cycle Race was held at Melbourne's Motor Velodrnme. International champions competed. as well as 33 members from Melbourne Branch which donated £S0 in prize money. The Jim Healy Memorial Mural was unveiled by Mr R Dixon, Pr·esident of the Communist Party of Australia, in the Party's offices in Day Street, Sydney on the 13th of July. The mural was painted over a period of three months by notable Australian artist Noel Coonihan. Its theme was mankind's struggle for a better; more enlightened way of life, and for democracy and peace. (Source: Maritime Worker, I5 December 1965 p4; 10 March 1965, p.5; 28 July 1965, p.2.)

216

Whar fies

1961-1977

Mechanical Branch publicly attacked Fitzgibbon as "unclean" because he favoured the Committees, in spite of them having been ratified by a rank and file vote of every branch in Australia. In Fitzgibbon's view the

broken industrial agreements which followed, and other issues like the stoppages over Vietnam, were weapons in the hands of the Federation's opponents and had brought on the 1965 legislation. In July 1965 the Federation had rejected an offer from Justice Gallagher to investigate its claims. This action prompted the setting up of the Woodward Inquiry, during which the 1965 legislation was passed. A majority of federal officials had not wanted to accept the Gallagher offer. Fitzgibbon opposed this view but had "put the God of unity of the Federation over and above common sense" and a unanimous recommendation to refuse Gallagher's offer was sent out by the Federal officers. The risky strategy of the 24 hour stoppages had followed, and as the Federation's position worsened, Fitzgibbon said the union had had to go to the ACTU in humiliation because "as isolated as we were we would have gone down with such a thunderous roar it would have been heard for years".

The peace movement and Vietnam One aspect of the complex social background to the WWF's battles in the 1960s was the continuing commitment of many of its members and officials to the peace movement, which often antagonised the government and employers. Along with other unions the WWF was active against French nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific in the 1960s and 1970s. The Federation issued a joint statement with the Seamen and Dockworkers of Indonesia in 1963, which said "The French Government's plan to explode nuclear weapons has shocked and dismayed the whole of peace-loving mankind". The Sydney Branch Waterfront Peace Committee conducted a leafleting and publicity campaign against the tests in 1964, which included sending postcards to the French embassy demanding "No French Tests". The WWF contributed to the ACTU-sponsored 1965 conference of countries bordering the Pacific which opposed all nuclear tests, called on the French Government to abandon them, and asked all ocher nations to support a total ban on nuclear weapons. In 1972 Australian unions banned French ships and aircraft in protest at continued French tests in the Pacific.-

The peace movement had focussed primarily on nuclear weapons in the 1950s, but it was the war in Vietnam to which it gave greater attention during the 1960s. The Australian Government supported the United States' actions in Vietnam between 1962 and 1972. The WWE

»

,

-

«

»

}

.±' g Above: Port Kembla watersider Jack Garber after fighting bushfires in October I968. Wharfies were (requently mobilised by WWF branches to assist with natural disasters such as fires, floods and cyclone Tracy in

Darwin. Right WWF veterans departing a 1965 Christmas Party with baskets of provisions which were gifts (ram the union.

217

218

Wharfies

was involved in anti-war activities both as a union and through the participation of its many committed individual members. On the 5th of June 1962, Melbourne watersiders refused to load barbed wire bound for Vietnam on the Houtman and condemned the Federal Government's

"interference in the affairs of another country". The Branch received "warmest thanks" from the Vietnam National Highways and River Transport Workers' Trade Union in Hanoi for the action, which that Union said was a helpful blow in the struggle for reunification. The barbed wire would be used "to encircle concentration camps for gaoling South Vietnamese workers and people," the Vietnamese union said. In 1965 the WWF censured as ineffectual the ACTU resolution which dealt with the dispatch of Australian troops to Vietnam but the

union's official opposition to the war at the time was less than wholehearted. The WWF was involved in protests, petitions and resolutions opposing the war but General Secretary Fitzgibbon wrote that although the WWF opposed sending troops "we also decided that we would not stick our necks our with industrial stoppages about Vietnam". This decision was a result of the WWF's vulnerable industrial position. Nevertheless Sydney, Melbourne and Port Kembla Branches conducted unauthorised stoppages opposing the war in 1965, and "nailed down the lid of our coffin", as Fitzgibbon saw it, in the pensions campaign of that year thus paving the way for drastic legislation.

Whilst the Seamen's Union was at the forefront of opposition to the war (in refusing to work the Boonaroo, carrying barbed wire to Vietnam) other maritime unions generally obeyed the 1966 ACTU ruling that there was to be no interference with the carriage of goods to Vietnam. ln September 1967, however, 2600 Sydney watersiders refused to work the ANL vessel the Jeparit which was bound for Vietnam, an action which was followed by ongoing stoppages over the same vessel. When 50 watersiders refused to load the Jeparit in 1969, their delegate, Harry Black, was suspended for a month by the ASIA, leading to a 24 hour stoppage by 4000 Sydney watersiders.

A highly emotional stop-work meeting at Sydney Town Hall on the 26th of November 1969 called for an end to the Vietnam War and

demanded an immediate cessation to the loading of war material on the vessel by members of the Branch, in line with WWF and labour movement policy. The vote in favour of the resolution, moved by Harry Black, was aided by a display of graphic photographs of

Jeparit or any other

the then recent My Lai massacre. With the exception of Vigilance

Officer Tas Bull, Sydney Branch officials, Communist Party members amongst them, opposed the resolution, as did Federal officials present. The Jeparit was recommissioned as a naval vessel and loaded thereafter

219

1961-1977

by service personnel. Harry Black recalls the Vietnam War period as "the finest times of our work and our activity [because of] the emphasis we placed on peace".® The campaign against the war grew in Australia and WWF branches were involved in demonstrations and protest actions of all kinds. Vic Slater was arrested with others and gaoled in Brisbane in 1969 for participation in an anti-war demonstration. The same year federal Industrial Officer Norm Docker signed a "Statement of Defiance" which opposed conscription for Vietnam and encouraged young men not to register. Docker and many other prominent people were fined for this action. A further 31 were charged later in 1969 for signing another Statement of Defiance, amongst them Fred Watson, Secretary of the South Coast Branch and Sydney Branch Vigilance Officers Bob Bolger

and Tas Bull. In 1970 the ACTU Executive pledged full support to end the Vietnam War and in the early 1970s anti-war activity reached a peak with the Vietnam moratoriums involving hundreds of thousands of Australians. Jim Donovan, later Joint Central (NSW) Branch Secretary, and Federal President, was arrested during the course of one of these.°

Weights and safety In spite of growing mechanisation in the stevedoring industry in the I 960s, the battle to keep down the back-breaking weights of wool dumps had to be fought again. After the abolition of double dumps there had been a gradual increase in the size of single bales and the Federation sought to have them limited to a maximum of 310 pounds. In 1964 the Federation agreed with employers that bales over 350 pounds would be marked and in I 966 agreement was reached, with the aid of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, that Federation members would handle or stow, but not top up, bales over 450 pounds. In 1970

the Sydney Branch waged a campaign to reduce weight of bagged cargo to the limits of the International Labor Organisation and the 1970 All Ports Conference decided that no member would individually lift or carry loads in excess of 55 kg. After a few disputes, the International Labor Organisation standard was applied. A Single Industry Safety Organisation had been established by Assistant General Secretary Ted Roach in the 1950s, but in the I 960s and 1970s safety issues were as diverse as the cargoes handled. These concerns included the use of phostoxin, for fumigating grain but responsible for deaths in silos; carbon monoxide from petrol engines in ships' holds; handling cyanide and asbestos; dust; protective clothing for freezers; injuries from sulphur fires; dangers of goose-neck jibs (fittings attached to the tines on fork-lifts to enable them to be used as small cranes); liquid petroleum gas; and safety ladders. (Source: Maritime Worker, passim; Waterside Workers' Federation, Minutes, passim.)

220

Vharfies

1961-1977

221

WWF Branches around the country participated in the moratoriums, and were involved in a high level of local peace activity including deputations, rallies, demonstrations and collections. Australia withdrew from the war and abandoned conscription after the election of the WWhitlam Labor Government in 1972. US military involvement in Vietnam formally ended in 1975.

The National Stevedoring Industry Conference: 1965-1967

The industry is now going through a massive change on an international scale a change that our Federation cannot prevent or even slow down. We can resist the change but then

we must eventually lose. The argument must therefore be basis of do we resist change, or do we cake from change the maximum that it is possible to take, having regard co all the circumstances.

considered on the

(Maritime Worker, Special Issue, April 1967.°) Wharfies marching

The peace movement aside, the WWF's main battle in the lace 1960s was ensuring its own survival. However much branch behaviour had provided the government with the opportunity to bring down harsh legislation, once it existed the simple reality for the WWF was that its position was severely weakened: it had little choice but to negotiate. In late October stop-work meetings agreed to "all-in" conferences proposed by the ACTU which would include representatives from the ACTU, the WWE the employers, the ASIA and the Department of Labour and National Service. The series of conferences, known as the National Stevedoring Industry Conference, was chaired by Woodward, but was separate from his original inquiry. The Conference met frequently over the next two years and the provisions finally agreed to there initiated profound change on the waterfront. The negotiations were conducted against a background of unprecedented industrial peace. The three major issues of the National Conference were permanency, pensions, and a future redundancy scheme. The WWF's concerns centred on pensions, the establishment of a mechanisation fund co assist early retirement, retraining and the payment of severance benefits. The Association of Employers of Waterfront Labour (AEWL), which was dominated by the interests of the overseas shipping lines, wanted overwhelmingly co secure permanency of employment. Permanency had never previously been high on the shipping companies' agenda, but they pushed for it now because casual

employment was incompatible with the new technology, through Melbourne containerisation in particular. The new cargo handling methods needed during the late 1960s. Front row, a permanent group of men who could operate the specialised equipment from left to right. required by containerisation: a casual pool of workers rotating between Ted McCormick. employers would no longer suffice. Additionally, casual employment was Curly Rourke, perceived as the underlying cause of industrial disputation, a system Charlie Fitzgibbon, which had failed to build up any loyalty to employers and induced Charlie Young and economic insecurity amongst the workers, exacerbating industrial Ted Bull. Second row. left to right. Goldie dissatisfaction. Green. Frank When final agreement was reached in 1967, permanency was the Vincent Les Lyon. greatest change made to the system of employment on the waterfront. Reg Mack. Ned All regular watersiders (not including those on the irregular or B-roster, McCool. Geoff or those in small ports) were now to be paid a weekly wage of $49.50. Swoyn. Members of They were employed either in Operational Companies by a single the Branch Women's employer or by a Holding Company which would distribute additional Commictee are also labour when needed among the Operational Companies. Provision was marching. made for equalisation of earnings between the two groups. Although eventually accepted throughout the Federation. support for permanency was not universal during the National Conference negotiations, as history and tradition dictated. A majority of Melbourne members, led by an alliance between the Maoists and right wingers in the Branch, voted against the permanency proposal on several occasions at stop-work meetings. A large minority in the Sydney Branch was also opposed.>

222

Vharfies

1961-1977

223

Geoff Swayn, former Melbourne Branch Vigilance Officer and Secretary, and Federal Councillor, recalled "There were those within our

ranks who said we should have fought ir, and that we would have been than to have finished up with what we had"." Ted Bull, former Melbourne Branch Secretary and Vigilance Officer, was one such: better off going down with all guns blazing

Oh I think they gave in coo easily .... we could've done better, but of course, that's my opinion. Fitzgibbon and Docker and all them... could argue the point [that] they couldn't do better, but they never used the industrial strength of the Federation as a whole, intelligently nor sufficiently, that would be my opinion.'

Diagram of

container handling technology.

Just as containerisation led the employers to pursue permanency for economic reasons, the Federation's support for permanency strengthened as it became clear that it offered some salvation in the face of the uncertainty of employment for watersiders in the future. It was a matter of sheer necessity. In 1965 and 1966 two British consortiums had been formed to institute container services between Britain and Australia, one of which had involved an investment of over $100 million, an amount which signified the seriousness of intent among the shipping companies in developing containerisation. Such a level of investment could not be ignored by the Federation. The recalcitrant Melbourne Branch ultimately accepted permanency and the WWF agreed to desist from a range of restrictive work practices which existed under casual employment. The new scheme was phased in to the major pores: Sydney, November 1967; Melbourne, January antry crane

150 ft light pole

1 .I

Yard gantry crane

..... [5.l

·········--••••••••• ••••••••• ===----ggmiiiiii

iii

g,4 .4fl DDIEDE] DJ IE

5 e! ¢ be!iii ii iiii «

Staging area

I

I

ii

Mobile yard crane

Three examples of manual handling of cargo prevalent in the stevedoring industry until the advent of

late 1960s. Left· handling hazardous chemicals in

containerisation in the protective clothing

Below: handling frozen mutwn in a 'tween deck. Below, left: stowing wool.

Wharfies

224

The Waterside Workers' Federation actively supported the national labour movement protest campaign against the gaoling of Clarrie O'Shea, Secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Tramway and Motor Bus Employees' Union in 1969. O'Shea was gaoled because his union failed to fully meet fines imposed by the Commonwealth Industrial Court The Federation had long opposed the penal powers of the Arbitration Act, under which it had been fined 58 times between 1965 and 1968, and the attack on O'Shea was perceived as an attack on the entire trade union movement. A series of strikes involving half a million workers, and mass demonstrations, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, took place, and O'Shea was released after five days, when his fines were paid anonymously. (Source: Maritime Worker; 12 May 1969, p I; 26 May 1969, pp. I, 8; Macquarie Book of Events, p.267.)

1961-1977

225

practices, and induced feelings of economic insecurity. It was widely, and with hindsight somewhat naively, anticipated that closer relations between employers and WWF members would develop under the new employment arrangements, reducing antagonism between the two groups.59 In the event these expectations were dashed, and sooner rather

than later.

Decade of change: 1967-1977 The greatest change in my time? Containerisation! When I started on the waterfront in 1950 we had draught horses at

Port Melbourne. No-one could wheel a six-wheeler tray full of 1968; Port Kembla, February 1968; Port Adelaide, March 1968; Freman tie, March 1968; Brisbane, August 1968; and Newcastle, March 56

1969. Ir was eventually extended to all ports. The responsibilities of the ASIA were reduced and the functions of rostering, allocation of labour, discipline and redundancy declarations were modified and many transferred to the employers. Agreement was also reached on a wide range of issues besides permanency, including a pensions scheme to which employers and /WF members respectively contributed on a 60:40 basis. (This was not however the non-contributory scheme which the WWF had always favoured.) The scheme initially applied to all watersiders in larger Aclass ports and included benefits for years of service back to 1942.1t later applied to all members. A compulsory retirement age of 65 was introduced. Agreement was also reached on other issues such as discipline, dispute handling and improved rates of work.® The Federation's most significant loss during negotiations was the issue of redundancy. The WWF insisted redundancy should only occur on a voluntary basis and that there should be monetary incentives to encourage early retirement amongst older men. The AEWL refused, and retained the right to enforce compulsory redundancy that it had under the Stevedoring Industry Act. The WWF had to accept defeat on this issue and on the mechanisation fund, which the employers also refused to concede. The final 1967 agreement retained the employers' retrenchment rights although it allowed for severance pay and other assistance. sa The agreement was initiated for a two year trial period and gave rise to expectations of a new era in waterfront industrial relations. The National Conference concluded that casual employment was the dominant cause of industrial strife on the waterfront, because it was a major factor in the high incidence of stoppages and restrictive work

stuff, about fifteen hundredweight, across Station Pier, it was too rough. So they had these horses- a little swingle-tree on them, just hook them onto the tray and they'd pull across the wharf, and you'd unload the tray and pull it back under the hook. With conventional methods it rook us about three days to do a ship called the Tarrawera with 48 000 cases of oranges.

That's working two shifts a day and a twilight seventeen handed gangs. Now we do it in forty containers which we put in two hours. They're full of oranges, we just pick them [the containers] up off the floor and put them in, plonk! Two hours' work with eleven men, think of that! (Al Greenwood, in Lowenstein and Hills, Under the

Hook.)

The story of profound change which occurred on the waterfront in the decade between 1967 and 1977 is readily disclosed by statistics from the period. They show a consistent drop in the man-hours worked in the industry and an accompanying and dramatic fall in the numbers of men required. The rapid introduction of advanced technology resulted in continuing industrial problems, and the sharp increase in disputes after the conclusion of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference agreement continued throughout the following decade. Bulk-loading was already commonplace by the late 1960s. Unitisation was another technological innovation. A variety of goods would be combined into single large units of about one tonne and handled by forklift rather than manually. There were 82 visits to Australia by 19 unit-loaded vessels between mid 1967 and mid 1968. Lighter aboard ship (LASH) vessels, which could lift cargo-filled barges weighing 500 tonnes on and off the ship, were less significant. But it was containerisation, and the huge capacities such technology entailed, that was the most significant change of all. The first fully containerised

Vharfies

226

1961-1977

227

vessel to arrive in Australia was the British ship the Encounter Bay, which had been loaded at Rotterdam because of a ban by British dockers on Australia-Britain containerised cargo. The Encounter Bay, carrying 140 000 tons berthed in Freman tie on the 29th of March, and in Sydney on the .3rd of April 1969. It faced further industrial trouble on its return

Support for indigenous peoples The Waterside Workers' Federation actively supported indigenous peoples in Australia and abroad throughout the I 960s and 1970s. One example was the establishment of the Moa Island Bakery in the Ton-es Strait Islands which was funded through a national levy of union members in 1965 after the Queensland Government refused the Moa Island community permission for the a bakery The bakery was officially opened on the 22nd of November 1968 and served the communities of Saint Paul's Reserve and Kubin Village with a daily supply of bread. In other moves, a cottage in Dubbo in western New South Wales was built in I 964 with funds from the union. It housed Aborigines visiting the Dubbo Base Hospital, or travelling through, who were denied accommodation in the town. Sydney Branch was represented by Aboriginal wharfies at the 8th Annual Conference of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines in April 1965. The committee included Jack Hanssen (former Australian lightweight champion), Charles (Chika) Dixon, Garvin Williams, Alan Ferguson, Roy Carroll, Harry Jard and Ray Walker: The committee conducted lunch hour and smoko meetings on the job prior to the [co' 'r·{Jll]' conference. The Federation funded 4 several scholarships for young Aboriginal 3 ;" "i people in the mid I 960s and in I 968, with ~ other unions, purchased a Volkswagen car to be used for contacting and training Aborigines in northern Australia to advance the struggle for civil and trade union rights. A donation of £. 1500 was made in 1966 to assist striking Aboriginal stockmen at Newcastle Waters Station in Sydney wharfies demonstrating in support o{ Abongino/ the Northern Territory, who were rights mid 1960s, protesting the postponement of full award rates for Aboriginal stockmen. In 1971 a $1.00 levy of watersiders provided a $1 0 000 donation to the Gurindji leaders to fence 500 square miles of land. The Gurindji conducted an extensive strike against the Vesteys company in 1966 which culminated in the first cattle station owned by Aboriginal people.

jiW~iirfiFs'Ek} EQUAL. Rciris £

''Ek pg0RIcaes

f

a W7 Er: EemA-C34¢ 1

(Source: Maritime Worker, 28 September 1965; 25 May 1966, p I; 75 November I 968, p.3; and passim for the period.)

Above: ANL container ship, Australian Endeavour. Below: Stem view of Wilhelmsen roll on/roll off ship, Texas, through vechide deck door.

228

Vharfies

1961-1977

229

The following year both container and roro vessels arrived in growing numbers. They carried 2.02 million tons (overseas and coastal)

Federation Rules were altered to allow the admission of women members in 1975.The first three women to join the Federation were tally clerks who transferred to the Whyalla branch from the Australian Workers' Union, with that Union's agreement, in October 1976. The fourth woman to take Federation membership was Mary Burke, a nurse who joined Darwin

and 3.14 million tons respectively in the year to mid 1970.°

Branch first aid.

to the UK and was diverted to Antwerp. A second container ship, the ACT I, arrived in Fremantle in April the same year.

Conventional vessel trade declined correspondingly. Additional specialised vessels were introduced each year in most routes bound from Australia and in 1973 four roro Scan Austral ships were commissioned for the Australian-European trade, full container service became available to the east and west coasts of the USA, two LASH vessels were introduced to the US west coast trade, and container capacity increased in the Far East trade. Throughout the decade port facilities were expanded to cater for the new technologies and in 1977 working visits of container vessels increased by 20.8 per cent over the previous year. The numbers of container and roro vessels increased as did visits by LASH ships."

Accompanying the inexorable rate of technological change was an alarming drop in the employment of WWF members. Total man-hours worked by watersider in the industry declined by 4.4 per cent in the year to mid 1970 and by a significantly greater 10.8 per cent in the

following year. The worst decrease (20.5 per cent) occurred between 1971 and 1972 and in the years up to 1977 ranged between 5. 4 per cent (1977) and 10.2 per cent (1973). The figures describing the number of watersiders employed around Australia tell the same story: in the first twelve months after the National Conference agreement was reached the number of registered watersiders declined by 1208 to 18 932. By mid 1973 numbers were down to 13 591 and by mid 1977 there were only 10 386 registered watersiders in Australian ports.°

The very many waterfront industrial disputes which occurred during these years were a reflection of the WWF's determination to secure and retain for its members the best conditions which declining circumstances could yield. There was much dispute in the British stevedoring industry about the introduction of the new technology itself, but in Australia that was negotiated at the national level through collective bargaining, between the WWF and the groups of employers simultaneously. Disputation in Australia was about the consequences of the change rather than the change itself, and the WWF defended its members' interests by whatever means necessary. As well as

disagreements with employers and the ASIA, demarcation disputes, especially with the Australian Workers' Union, the Transport Workers' Union and the Storemen and Packers' Union, were a feature of the

(Source: Maritime Worker, 15

February 1977, p.2; 27 September

1977, p.6; 29

November 1977, p.l7.)

period as new work sites opened up and definitions and methods of work changed. The waterfront's reputation as a place of industrial turmoil was enhanced, in the ASIA's view, by employer failure to enforce discipline

in the face of union demands, and their willingness to pass on increased costs to consumers. (The ASIA was theoretically neutral, and although it usually sided with the employers, it could also be critical of them.) The unusual period of industrial peace, which had coincided with the course of the National Conference, ended almost immediately after the National Conference agreement was concluded. Man-hours lost through stoppages almost tripled ro 288 340 in the year to mid 1968. There was much dissatisfaction with wage rates under the new system but Federal Industrial Officer Norm Docker called for discipline and unity. He accused Melbourne Branch of unnecessary, wasteful and ineffectual stoppages and walk-offs because of teething problems in the new permanency scheme. Docker said "Real militancy has nothing in common with the attitude of those who seize every opportunity for a job or port walk-off without thinking of whether the workers will gain or lose from it".General Secretary Fitzgibbon also condemned Melbourne Branch, and to an even greater extent its Sydney counterpart. Arguing that the new weekly hire system in fact provided better take home wages than the casual system, he accused some in Sydney Branch of a: destructive campaign attacking the concept of unity in the Federation around Federation policy .... Extremist groupings have published distorted, inaccurate material without conscience, conveniently acting [in] a destructive role and cloaking this in a covering of militant bravado and provocative statement.®

Disputes about equalisation of earnings were a major cause of stoppages. The National Conference agreement included provisions for employers to regulate work to avoid differences in earnings between employees of Operational Companies and the Holding Company. But in the event Operational employers, who sought to cultivate loyalty with their employees by offering overtime and weekend work at generous penalty

230

Wharfies

rates, effectively discriminated against employees of the Holding Company. Such acts revealed a lack of understanding of waterfront culture, where the egalitarian tradition had rendered equalisation of earnings an important issue for decades. Fears of employer favouritism, and the insecurities that it had made possible under causal employment,

1961-1977

231

and were generally responsible for an overall decline in waterfront discipline and supervision.' It was to be the ASIA's continuing refrain over its few remaining years.

were revived. Watersiders refused to work extended shifts and

The 1970 strike

weekends unless equalisation rosters dictated they should® and in early l 968 an agreement called the "Memorandum of Understanding of the Operation and Application of an Equalisation Unit Scheme" was reached after negotiations at branch and national level. The high level of disputes continued in 1969 (21 ports stopped in May over the gaoling of Clarie O'Shea), prompting the ASIA to observe that members and officials of the WWF resorted co direct action rather than abiding by awards and Industrial Relations Committee agreements. The employers, in the ASIA's view, were equally to blame because they failed to impart discipline, conceded demands coo often,

Industrial action reached a peak in 1970 with a national waterfront stoppage, the biggest since 1956, between the 21st and 25th of March. It was followed by an April overtime ban. The action was in support of claims for wage increases, four weeks' annual leave, ten days' sick pay, three days' compassionate leave, improved retirement benefits, improved long service leave, and other improvements to employment conditions.? The Federation, which had the support of the ACTU, argued its claims were reasonable because the increase granted by the Arbitration Commission in the 1970 national wage case had been trivial: it ignored the rise in national productivity and resulted in wages which had less purchasing power than the previous year. The Federation also argued that since waterside workers were required to be available for work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. then they were entitled to four weeks' annual leave like ocher shift workers; to have annual leave and long service leave without reduction of wages; and to receive sick and compassionate leave provisions like those in other

Darwin watersiders only became members of the Waterside Workers' Federation in I 970, when former members of the North Australian Workers' Union transferred to the W\WF and formed a new branch. (The Union then became a branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union.) Darwin watersiders had more than their share of colourful leaders. They included Paddy Carroll of the North Australian Workers' Union, and within the Federation, "Curly" Nixon, Bill Donelly, Brian Manning, Kevin Manski, and more recently, Branch Secretary Trevor Charles who was appointed International Transport Workers' Federation inspector in 1996.

The relationship between watersider members of the two unions stretched back at least as far as World War II when Federation members were transferred into the port under wartime arrangements to assist with increased cargoes. Many waterside workers and seamen were killed in the first Japanese air raid on Darwin. Like many remote ports, Darwin fought important battles in difficult circumstances. Prior to Federation membership, North Australian Workers' Union members frequently supported Federation campaigns, stopping work in solidarity and contributing financial support. Campaigns included unionisation of small ships operating in the port; the campaign for permanency; unionisation of the local stevedoring company, Perkins, of which the Australian Workers' Union eventually gained coverage; and protection of union coverage where dumb barge operations were attempted. Darwin watersiders were also highly active in the anti-Vietnam War struggles; in support of Aboriginal cause; opposition to uranium export; anti-apartheid campaigns and support for the East Timorese independence movement. (Source: Personal communicallon or Irevor Charles.)

awards.'' A two-year agreement was reached in which the most important gains were $6.50 a week increase for ordinary watersiders, an increase of one week's annual leave, and a 17.5 per cent loading on holiday pay. Sick leave increased from five to seven days a year and became cumulative, three days' compassionate leave was granted, meal money was increased and overalls supplied. W'WF officials paid tribute to the ACTU and to the public efforts of its President, Bob Hawke, for assistance in the campaign.' A trouble-free period was expected because a term of this agreement was that there would be no stoppages in connection with claims already agreed, but industrial relations in the industry continued to decline. The ASlA again lamented the poor state of discipline in the industry, claiming it occurred only according to the degree of responsibility exhibited by the men themselves. Disputes that year included stoppages over the Vietnam War and South African apartheid. In 1972 the cost of "locked-up idle time", under which watersiders employed by Operational Companies often had no work to do, reached $8 million a year, becoming a contentious political issue. The figure also highlighted the redundancy issue about which WWF members were

232

Vharfies

fearful. The Sydney and Newcastle Branches overwhelmingly rejected cash incentives for voluntary redundancy, and Sydney threatened protest stoppages, non co-operation and a complete overtime ban if

anyone was made forcibly redundant. lt seemed that everyone, including General Secretary Fitzgibbon and ACTU President Hawke, had underestimated the level of feeling about redundancy amongst wharfies. The Sydney Branch carried a resolution which stated:

Compulsory redundancy has been foremost in the minds of stevedoring workers since the development of new methods of cargo handling and

Wharf labouring costs were frequently and simplistically blamed for the high charges in the Australian stevedoring industry. Two 1977 inquiries into stevedoring charges by the Prices Justification Tribunal concluded that proposed increases in wharf handling and shippers' charges at several ports by James Patrick and Co Pty Ltd and Patrick Operations Pty Ltd were not justified. The Tribunal also concluded that existing prices for wharf handling and shippers' charges at Sydney and Melbourne charged by these companies and Seatainer Terminals were not justified and should be reduced. These were the first occasions on which the Tribunal had ever concluded that existing prices should be reduced. (Source: Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, Report,

transportation. The labor effects of these technical changes the estimates proffered

now greatly exceed to the WWF when our current contract was signed.

233

1961-1977

~~players did not insist on enforced redundancy because periodic a our shortages could be the result. The prospect of an expensive strike was also unattractive. Redundancy was accepted by 787 watersiders in early 1972. Another 68 in Port Adelaide and Newcastle were made forcibly redundant. They ~ere_the only and last watersiders ever so treated, and they were offered e first opportunity to return to the industry. All those who wished to

:me back eventually did so. The 1972 contract was negotiated without . e national industrial action of 1970 and achieved the highly significant advance that no watersider would be made redundant during

the two year period of the agreement, an arrangement continued in

Norm Docker; former Federal Industrial Officer

and Assistant General Secretary. and General Secretary from

1983-4.

subsequent contracts. The notional 35 hour week was also achieved. The WWF gained national wage increases; wage increases for chose in the remaining casual ports; a 30 per cent increase in pension benefits; an increased employer contribution to the pension fund from 3:2 to 2:1; increased attendance money in small ports where permanency had not been introduced; payment for untaken sick leave on retirement; and the right of the WWF to strike on industrial issues not the subject of negotiated claims or counter-claims.77 There was significant opposition to the 1972 contract in Sydney Branch where over 30 per cent of the membership, led by the CPA, voted against it on the grounds that it disallowed wage increases for two years.

Although man-hours lost to stoppages declined briefly in 1973, time lost in the stevedoring industry remained generally high, representing 1.2 per cent of the total time lost in all industry throughout Australia. Watersiders comprised only approximately 0.2 per cent of the total workforce. Contrary to all National Stevedoring Industry Conference expectations the incidence of "special agreements" grew. with 15 per cent of the stevedoring workforce employed under these in 1973. Men working under special agreements, such as those which applied in container terminals, earned more than those working on the conventional waterfront. Disputes remained the preoccupation of observers of the industry, and the ASIA complained that employers were too quick to appease union demands in the face of threats of stoppages, simply passing on extra costs to consumers.

+{+} ;

J'

r?'

Shipping and waterfront costs, delays and inefficiencies were often simplistically blamed only on stoppages but although the level of disputes was high, the reasons for the industry's extensive problems were complex. The port of Sydney was a case in point: in 1973-74 it experienced extraordinary delays caused by a combination of factors. There had been a sudden flood of imports, combined with inadequate port facilities, and a labour force which was under strength, in spite of

1977, p.9.)

234

Whar fies

1961-1977

235

high levels of idle time, for the volume of work suddenly available. Problems were exacerbated because although Port Jackson is a

Internationalism

wonderful harbour it is not a good site for a port because of its

From the I 960s to the 1980s the Waterside Workers' Federation continued to express

surround mg hilly terrain. The port had only a small useable geographic area, was cramped and congested, and large unwieldy transports moved cargo to and from the port on roads built for nineteenth century vehicles and traffic levels. Sydney's container and roro terminals were both in Balmain, a heavily populated suburban area served only by narrow winding streets.

_

In spite of massive redevelopment, port facilities in Sydney remained

inadequate. During the 1973-74 congestion, 400 container mixed purpose and conventional vessels were delayed, with an estimated cost

to their owners of nearlyy $8 million. ·illi Siucl :h prol vbl lems were increased by a co-ordination among port users: shipping companies, importers, porters, customs agents, and transport companies. Additionally, there were 15 unions active in the port of Sydney, other than the oft-blamed W\'i!F_, each with their own industrial agenda. The multiplicity of unions contributed to waterfront problems. Demarcation disputes between

g

competing unions were common and added to the toll of industrial and political stoppages.®

The 1974 strike The 1974 contract was again preceded by a nationwide three day strike

8t

and numerous unauthorised stoppages, which took place between the and 10th of April after negotiations broke down. Before the strike t; e WWF had warned branches to be aware of the special circumstances surrounding negotiations conducted under collective bargaining arrangements: Whilst no apparent industrial effort takes place during the negotiations, the major effort in that time is an organisational and propaganda effort which Is Just as

important

to

provide the background for the possible need for a

major stoppage effort if the negotiations are unsuccessful.

The 1974 contract was negotiated when the strike ended. It :corporated the new concept of wage fixation, to apply from the 6th of lay 1975, under which rates of pay were related either to 93.75 per cent 0

_average weekly earnings or the percentage increase in che Consumer :ice Index for 1974. National wage case increases also applied. The r SIA complained that the very substantial gains made by the WWF esulted in higher freight rates but were not accompanied by any change

solidarity with people and unions in other nations. South Africa was a case in point and the Federation supported Australian Council of Trade Unions' campaigns opposing apartheid with boycotts of ships carrying South African cargo. The union was involved in the international campaign against apartheid in the 1970s and was at the forefront of the antiSouth African sporting tours protests. In 1976 South African cargo was banned in protest at the murder of children and demonstrators in Soweto. Periodic bans on South African ships, protesting apartheid and oppression of trade unionists, continued through the 1980s and the Federation participated in fundraising for the African National Congress. In the 1970s and 1980s it provided assistance for Chile's persecuted trade union movement; placed bans on Indonesian ships in response to the Indonesian military junta's armed intervention in East Timor; sponsored an appeal in Fiji Supreme Court on behalf of gaoled waterside worker and seamen's union officials; protested the arrest of Malaysian unionists; supported Polish workers in the struggle for reform of Polish trade unions; supported striking Greek marine engineers; placed bans on Israeli shipping in response to the invasion of Lebanon and indiscriminate bombing of civilians; levied members to help the wives and children of British striking mineworkers whose welfare payments were cut by the British government; protested Pakistan's victimisation of trade union officials and the Philippines' Government's persecution of Father Brian Gore and the Negros Nine; and organised, with other unions, the shipment of S0 tonnes of powdered milk for Vietnamese children. The WWF also paid attention to its own region. It participated in Asia-Pacific Dockers' Conferences and solidarity days during the I 960s and in 1967 Federal Council decided to assist the development of a Papua New Guinea waterside workers' union. General Secretary Fitzgibbon went to Port Moresby in 1969 to assist the Central District Waterside Workers' Union prepare its log of claims. Norm Docker later appeared in arbitration proceedings for both the Papua New Guinean and Fijian dockworkers. The Federation initiated the South Pacific Dockers' Conference in 1973, which was held in Fiji. In 1974 a historic Trans-Tasman Accord was signed in which Australian and New Zealand waterfront and seamen's unions reached accord on trade union rights in trans-Tasman b·ade and the necessity for Australia and New Zealand to share the development of trade in the future. The Federation participated in the Asian Regional Conference for dockers' unions in 1978 and the 1981 Pacific Trade Unions' Conference in Vanuatu, the issues of which were nuclear energy and a nuclear-free Pacific. In 1985 Australian. Japanese, US and New Zealand representatives of stevedoring unions agreed to form a mutual defence pact in the Pacific. Many of the Federation's actions in support of other nations occurred through its affiliation with the International Transport Workers' Federation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions' aid organisation APHEDA. Through the International Transport Workers' Federation aid was provided to third world seafarers and other Federation affiliates in various parts of the world. The 1982 International Federation conference carried

236

Wharfies

resolutions on Asia-Pacific union issues such as discrimination, civil rights and a nuclear-free Paetfic. In February 1985 the International Federation conducted a course at the Clyde Cameron College for trade union educators from India, Bangladesh, Vanuatu, Fiji, Hong Kong, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Through APHEDA the Waterside Workers' Federation supported aid programs training nurses, midwives, teachers and others in third world countries. Federation members supported an automatic pay deduction once a year for projects run through APHEDA. For instance, a South African project involved occupatronal health and safety training courses for workers in the stevedoring, mining, metal trades and constructron industries. (Source: Maritime Worker, passim.)

in conditions or employment designed to improve productivity or efficiency. A majority of 75 per cent of members voted to accept the national contract, although both Sydney and Melbourne registering

high "No" votes. The WWF was not the only union to make considerable ground at th: Is time. Und nuer central wage fixation average weekly earnings in 1974-75 increased by 25.5 per cent, but because the rate of inflation was also very high, the real increase was a nevertheless substantial 7.5 per cent. This was the highest increase in the post-war period and possibly the highest in Australian history. Accompanying this gain was an Increase in unemployment, which reached a post-war high of 5.08 per cent, of concern to all unions affected by technological change, especially the WWF. Industrial relations in the stevedoring industry remained a cause of concern in the mid 1970s. The cost of idle time continued to grow. Labour requirements changed dramatically between 1974 and 1975, especially in Sydney and Melbourne, highlighting problems peculiar to the industry. There were consistently heavy labour shortages in the last half of 1974 but they were followed by consistently heavy surpluses in the first six months of 1975. Only short term recruitment was needed for the 1974 shortage, bur because redundancy could only be voluntary the recruited labour would soon become a surplus and add to the growing idle time bill. The ASIA recruited small numbers in late 197 4 but was nevertheless left with a surplus in the first half of 1975. An additional problem, which did not exist when watersiders were part of a casual pool available to work for whichever shipping company required them, was locked-up idle time. Employees of one Operational Company might have no work to do, while another Operational Company needed additional labour. This was no fault of the WWF but it had been demanded by the employers in the National Stevedoring

237

1961-1977

Conference a decade before. Indeed, because it was well aware of the danger, it was the WWF which agitated for locked-up labour to be released to companies which had a shortage. A new two year contract was negotiated in 1976, without widespread strike action, and the voluntary redundancy agreement was renewed. There were no wage increases under the new agreement but all previously won conditions were retained and some fringe benefits expanded. Employer contributions to the pension fund increased from $4.25 million the previous year to $10.66 million for the year 1976-77. The negotiations for the 1976 contract were conducted against a

background of doubt about the future of wage indexation and the union retained the right to maintain its wage standard and to re-open negotiations if indexation was discontinued or altered from its current Offidals at a Job ·d . d • c Delegates' Conference form, or if there were increases grantecd outside indexation ,, 5deyin I970 comparable workers. discussing containerThe Australian waterfront was widely regarded as a shambles by isation and the need 1976. The cost of surplus labour had reached record levels and no matter fay unions in the

how quickly the stevedoring industry shed employees, there were always maritime industry co either too many left for the work available, or those that were left were amalgamate le(t co inefficiently used because of the way the industry was structured. In the right Ina Heideman, ·d to Matt Munroe.N Bob year to mid 1976 redundancy benefits of nearI y $9 mi·tt·ton were pal c Bolger. Tom e1son 1030 men who departed voluntarily. Another 113 accepted transfers {0 -j[ Brownlee.

\ATE TO WIN FROM

NERI

_

·-··-

SHORTER S

ENT SWEEKS ANNUA

EARS

REASED

238

Wharfies

other ports. Idle time costs were more than twice as much as any previous year, then amounting to over $17 million. The average number of waterside workers on idle time each day was 2347 or about one-third the daily average available for work,87 and stoppages that year increased to 2.0 per cent of man-hours worked, accounting for l ..3 per cent of the total for all Australian industry ( when waterside workers amounted to 0.3 per cent of all civilian wage and salary earners). The WWF had protected its members from the worst excesses of a period of unprecedented change, through artful manipulation of permanency, voluntary redundancy and well funded payouts. But the costs incurred were becoming intolerable. Employers and bureaucrats from government, the ASIA and various port authorities were also held responsible for the time and money wasted in Australian ports. High daily container costs were largely set by foreign owned shipping lines and consortiums, over which Australian authorities had no control. These companies justified high freight charges on the grounds that limited land area was available for terminals; no financial assistance was provided in Australia as it was overseas; and labour conditions were

1961-1977

239

The advent of advanced technology made port closures a feature of Federation life. Those closed included Port Augusta in South Australia; Cooktown, lnnisfail, Maryborough, Bundaberg, Lucinda Point Bowen, Port Douglas. Mourilyan and Goondi in Queensland; Carnar von in Western Australia; Northern Rivers ports in New South Wales; Port Fairy and

Warrnambool in Victoria; and Strahan, Smithton, Port Huon, Launceston and Stanley in Tasmania. In a brief change of fortune in the mid 1970s the Federation increased the number of its branches when it took over the ports of Wyndham, Derby (later closed) and Broome in Western Australia and Ardrossan and Edithburgh in South Australia, all of which were formerly covered by the Australian Workers' Union. Branches were also created in Darwin, · n joined the when waterside worker members of the North Austr:al.lian W/orkers' s U ·niO . · il ted wit ith the Federated Miscellaneous Federation after their. former union amalgamated

Workers' Union, and in Triabunna in Tasmania, and Welshpool and Westernport in Victona. Members in far flung ports had at times to deal with unusual hazards. When then Federal Organiser Tas Bull visited new members in Wyndham, they complained the employers had denied them a side net which was usually rigged between ship and wharf to protect both cargo and watersiders. The appearance of crocodiles to feed on the blood outlet from a nearby abattoirs helped settle the issue. Side nets were soon installed at the request of the union. ·.. : gr 1a Bull, July 1995.) (Source: From the author's interview with las

Uranium The mining and export of uranium was a major concern of the peace movement and environmentalists in the late 1970s, but the union movement failed to achieve unity on the issue. In 1976 unions gave conditional support to carrying out existing uranium export contracts, but not to new contracts. The 1977 Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress demanded the Fraser Government hold a referendum on uranium mining and export, but by 1979 the possibility of a union ban on uranium mining had disappeared. The ACTU Congress of that year overrode the position of its President Bob Hawke, and reaffirmed its policy of opposition. But many unions were already participating in various aspects of the uranium mining industry. effectively scuttling unions which might have applied the policy. Although the Federation opposed the mining and export of uranium, it feared exposure and isolation if rt took independent action. At the union's 1979 Federal Council, General Secretary Fitzgibbon said "I would recommend to waterside workers that if other unions face up to their responsibility we will do likewise, but we will not be the fall guys ...". The Federation's All Ports Conference in September 1979 carried a policy statement which pointed out all the ways in which other unions tolerated or assisted uranium mining. The Federation said it would ban all cargoes from the I st of December, if all 25 unions engaged in uranium mining agreed to do the same thing: the upshot was that the wharfies loaded cargoes for the uranium industry. (Source: Federal Council, Minutes, 18 September 19 79; 1979 Al Ports Conference, Minutes; Bob Carr: "Australian Irade Unionism in 19/9", Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1980, pp.IO? 103.)

unstable and unrealistic. These interests argued chat current labour conditions were formulated in boom times when all berths were constantly occupied, but chat idle time, overtime and inflexible rostering systems all contributed to costs. The waterfront labour picture was becoming increasingly complex. There were still claims of frivolous and vexatious WWF stoppages but there had been a marked improvement in the number of stoppages since ten years previously. Before 1965 the waterfront had accounted for 20 per cent of time lost in Australian industrial disputes, but in I 975-76 accounted for only 1.0 per cent. Of the I 7 I disputes on the waterfront between February and July 1976, the WWF was involved in only 35, most of which were brief or were demarcation disputes with other unions. The proliferation of unions on the waterfront was now drawing attention as a root cause of industrial strife. Most world ports had only one union but the high number of unions in Australian ports meant that a strike by any one, no matter how small, could disrupt an entire port. The bureaucratic maze also contributed substantially to waterfront industrial problems. Conditions were set by a tribunal of the AEWL, W'WE ACTU, Department of Labour, and the ASIA an "economically unviable conglomeration of lame-duck statutory bodies and entrenched private enterprise, with little public accountability". Rational dialogue was

240

Wharfies

difficult to achieve, especially since the AEWL was dominated by overseas interests who were not registered employers in Australia.

Government departs the industry

Delegates ta the 1 974 State Conference at Port Pirie. Seated third

from right is Federal Organiser Tas Bull, second from right South Australian Outports Councillor Charlie Luxton and far right Port Pirie

Branch Secretary and former Federal Coundllor Gerald O'Brien.

The widespread view in the mid 1970s was that problems in the industry were worsening and that the National Conference scheme was a failure. Clyde Cameron, Minister for Labour in the Whitlam Labor Government commissioned a report titled "Some Aspects of the Stevedoring Industry in Australia" but known as the Foster Report, after its author, N K Foster who was an officer of the Department of Labour, a former Member of Parliament, and had previously been an official of the Port Adelaide Branch of the WWF. He concluded that the government had three broad alternatives regarding the future of the industry: allowing the existing position to continue by amending existing legislation; a positive program for restructuring the industry with some form of government control or participation; or progressive withdrawal of the government from the industry. The report favoured the second option,9' but in 1976 the new Fraser Coalition Government chose the last option and decided to withdraw from the industry. Tony Street, Minister for Labour in the Fraser Government, announced that it would relinquish its statutory role in the industry at the end of 1976. (In the event, this did not occur until the end of 1977.) Having canvassed the views of all interested parties, Street concluded that no-one favoured the continuation of the existing arrangements.

O

1961-1977

241

The government had decided that although there were serious problems to be solved in the industry, the continued presence of a government regulatory body was no longer necessary. The WWF also favoured the government's withdrawal. The Foster Report had prompted a rare occasion in the WWF in which Federal officers had gone to Federal Council with sharply differing positions. The division was about the immediate future of the stevedoring industry and included debate about whether the WWF should opt for a position which supported nationalisation, which had long been a policy of the WWF; or corporatisation of the overseas owned stevedoring companies; or whether they should opt for withdrawal of government from the industry altogether. Whichever course the union supported would have resulted in unusual allies: nationalisation or corporatisation were favoured by the ASIA which was fighting for its existence; and the employers favoured government withdrawal. General Secretary Fitzgibbon, Assistant General Secretary Docker and Federal Organiser Bull did not regard nationalisation or corporatisation as achievable but Federal Organiser Lenane was in favour of "further consideration of the corporatisation concept". After several days' discussion Federal Council reached its position that the government should withdraw from the industry and that a "normal" union-employer structure should be established, based on a coordinating body consisting of shipowners, stevedores and the union. In 1977, the final year of the ASIA's involvement in the Australian stevedoring industry, the cost of surplus labour reached a new high. Redundancy payments reached $14 620 287 for the 1079 watersiders who volunteered to leave and the 204 who transferred to other ports. Increased severance payments were offered to men at Sydney,

In the early I 960s prominent Melbourne job delegate Lew Hillier was involved in an incident over a ships' crews unshipping hatches prior to the task of discharging cargo, work claimed by the Federation as belonging exclusively to its members. Hillier was charged with interfering with stevedoring operations and was found guilty at a hearing before the local Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority chairman and deregistered from the industry. The decision was upheld by the Arbitration Commission on appeal. Deregistration meant that Hillier could no longer work in the industry as a waterside worker; but careful study of the

Stevedoring Industry Act showed there was nothing to prevent him contesting a union position. He did so and was returned by the members as a Vigilance Officer in the following election. It was the first and only time such a mechanism had been used. He later became a Federal Councillor until early retirement through ill-health some years later: (Source: Moritime

Worker, 20 May

1964, pp.4-7: 19

August 1964, p.8.)

242

Vharfies

243

1961-1977

law by regulations made under the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967. Another consequence of that failure was the loss of the ability to recruit on a temporary basis when additional men were required .... Without those excessive costs, it would not have been necessary to increase the rates of the Stevedoring Industry Charge to the present high levels and the industry would not have been faced with the problem of funding a deficit which, at June 1977, stood at about $28 600 000. The ASIA said failure to implement the redundancy scheme would not have happened if "the government of the day had taken a firm stand from the beginning and supported the efforts of the Authority to ensure that the agreement was honoured".9' Anticipating the departure of the government from the waterfront, the WWF and stevedoring companies negotiated radical new measures to improve utilisation of waterfront labour in early 1977. Under the National Conference agreement there had been no allowance for the transfer of labour between Operational Companies. As well as the problems of "locked up" labour, Operational Companies sometimes had their own labour idle while Holding Company labour was brought in to work instead, because of the compulsion to equalise earnings amongst watersiders. Under the scheme which commenced on the lst of January 1978, the Holding Company was abolished in all major ports. Provision Assistant General

Secretary Norm Docker with Port Moresby waterside

offiaals Loea Sale (left) and Reg MAlister (centre) ,n 1973. Docker

assisted in the establishment of the first award (or PNG

watersiders.

Melbourne, Newcastle and Port Adelaide between the 2lst of December 1976 and the 31st of March 1977 after a conference convened by Minister Street between the AEWL and the WWE presided over by Justice Robinson of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The purpose of the conference was to reduce the labour force to make stevedoring operations more efficient, as an essential first step to any new arrangements in the industry. By the end of the year it was clear the problem of surplus labour had not been solved and labour requirements were declining even further because of changes to cargo handling techniques. Idle rime had cost $16 124 662, only $1 479 154 less than the previous year, and about 30 per cent of the workforce was on idle time at any given rime. In its final report the ASIA blamed the AEWL for the parlous stare of waterfront affairs: most of the enormous costs of idle time and redundancy payments over the past nine years have been due to the failure by the AEWL to implement the redundancy agreements which were agreed upon by the National Stevedoring Industry Conference in 1967, and which were subsequently given the force of

,rr' t ~ ~

Watersider and job delegate George Gotsis, on left and Ina Heidtman, longserving secretary and office manager in

the Sydney WWF Branch. on right with Alan Miller.

244

Wharfies

The Sydney Branch Executive established a Retired Members' Association in January 1971: a significant number of members had retired in the I 960s because of technological change and the trend was continuing. Amongst the retirees was Dutchy Young, who had been Sydney Branch President for over twenty years as well as a Federal Councillor: Young joined the Federation in 1927 when he was living in Millers Point and was later part of a powerful branch leadership with Tom Nelson and lvo Barrett. He became the Retired Members' Association's first Secretary and another well-known veteran, Harry Druitt, became its first President The Association's newssheet Ebb Tide was launched in 1974 and has been distributed regularly since that date. Carl King followed Dutchy Young as Secretary and editor and feature writer for Ebb Tide. King had earlier edited The Wharfie which was banned by the Menzies Government in 1940. The I 00th edition of Ebb Tide was distributed in March 1991 under the names of Association President Dick Hackett and Secretary Ron Maxwell. Amongst the objects of the Retired Members' Association are the cultivation of continuing interest in the union and the provision of assistance for its policies and activities as the Association deems appropriate; and to draw attention to the inadequacy of pensions for retired workers and the undue hardship, poverty, loss of dignity and denial of vital human rights to which pensioners and their dependents are subjected. The Retired Members' Association maintains a close working relationship with the union and supports all its campaigns, including participating in picket lines.

CHAPTER

EIGHT

1977-1993 Industry unionism and waterfront reform ...as a matter of policy... the Federation has a right to cover all work within waterfront areas or adjacent installations, and that where such work is available, or workers performing such

work seek Federation membership, the Federation will give consideration to providing labour for such work or taking such workers into membership.

(Charlie Fitzgibbon, Federal Council, Minutes.')

(Source: Personal communication of Harry Black and Ron Maxwell.)

was made for the transfer of labour between companies and a supplementary labour force of retired waterside workers was established to meet temporary labour shortages in all major ports. Port conciliators were appointed and dispute settling procedures strengthened to improve industrial relations at job level. For the first time since 1942, the Australian stevedoring industry was free to function as other Australian industries did, without statutory government involvement.

The complex results of containerisation both in membership decline and the strategies developed by the union to deal with it remained the guiding force in the Waterside Workers' Federation during the last years of Charlie Fitzgibbon's period of leadership. One major result was the WWF's campaign to become an industry union, which would cover other workers connected with the waterfront, not just wharfies alone. This led to a marked change in its relationship with many other unions, resulting at times in an atmosphere of mistrust and accusations of poaching. The idea of some form of industry union for the stevedoring and/or maritime industry had been around almost as long as the WWE but it was not until 1978 that the Federation seriously contemplated achieving it. The circumstances of labour in the stevedoring industry had changed significantly in the preceding years. Craft unions, which represented workers from the same craft or trade across many industries. were now present on the waterfront with small scattered numbers of members who maintained the equipment introduced by technological change. These tradesmen, such as mechanics, electricians and metalworkers, had become essential to the industry, were thus very powerful, and were

responsible for a growing number of disputes on the waterfront. Unlike

246

Wharfies

1977-1993

247

earlier decades, when the WWF ran its own industrial agenda, it was now often a victim of other unions' industrial action, and was frequently

blamed by the public for disputes for which it was not responsible. The Federation was further aggrieved that several unions had attempted to dislodge it from container work since its introduction. The WWF also felt that it did all the research legwork for negotiations in the industry, which other unions then used as the benchmark in demands for their own members who worked as tradesmen within the stevedoring industry. Such complaints justified the WW F's campaign for an industry union, which in effect amounted to competition with other unions for membership. It was spurred on by the continuing decline in the WWF's own membership. In September 1978 a small number of tradesmen, members of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) and the Amalgamated Metal Workers' and Shipwrights' Union (AMWSU), struck over pay and conditions in Melbourne container terminals. As a result 800 Federation members were stood down. (This was the first time such action had ever been taken against wharfies, because prior to 1967 they were casually employed.) The WW F was sympathetic to the ETU and AMWSU claims but stand downs were a serious issue. They were a direct and negative consequence of the expression of industrial power by a small group of unionists on other workers. In response to the stand downs, the WWF embarked on a week long strike in Melbourne which tied up 100 ships. The WWF took the decision to embark on a campaign for an industry union in reaction to this demonstration of its vulnerability. Fitzgibbon warned that the union would seek to expand its coverage on the waterfront beyond waterside workers (the WW F also intended to seek coverage of all workers when new container terminals opened in Botany Bay and Brisbane).1 In a resolution which called on employers to withdraw the stand down orders, the WW F said: Federal Council declares that the present dispute has been forced on us by circumstances over which we have no control. This clearly demonstrates the need for industry unions. It therefore calls on all branches to endorse a policy for immediate implementation that the Federation take every step available to it to establish an industry union in the stevedoring industry. The Federation had never had coverage of tradesmen on the waterfront, but it now began to enrol tradesmen members of other unions involved in stevedoring. Fitzgibbon rejected charges of poaching workers and asserted that the WWF was not trying to compensate for the large

I

L-

Above: Union protest over the gaoling of twenty one unionists in WA in late 1970s, led by Fremantle WWF Branch officials, L to R, Ron Inkster,

Jim Clarke, Jock Smith and Dick Poole

and rank and file delegate Bill Spencer. Left A meeting of Victorian port branches. Foreground L to R: Melbourne Branch Secretary Caude Cumberlidge and President Jim Beggs: rear l to R Melbourne Branch Vigilance Officer Arch Arceri; Portland

Branch Secretary Graham Kempton; Geelong Branch Secretary Mick O'Leary and President Jim Mority.

248

Wharfies

numbers of members it had losr in the last 20 years. He argued that recruiting from other unions had been principled: We do not attempt to persuade people to join.... We let it be known that we are willing to accept new members. Nothing is done in secret .... \We only go and talk to them. We have an enormous number of petitions from workers [wanting] to come and join us.'

The other unions were not so sure, and in February 1979 the ETU and the AMWSU sought deregistration of the Federation through the Federal Court.' The court action ended when the WWF gave an

undertaking it would not enrol any more tradesmen until its application for a rules change which if successful would allow coverage of other workers - was completed. Fitzgibbon wrote "At the first hearing that occurred before the Registrar, there were 133 objectors to our rule change application. We have established a record in respect of objectors to a major rule change application". The late 1970s and early 1980s saw disputes over coverage which would affect the WWF's industry union campaign throughout the next decade. A turbulent period was prompted by the entry of Western Australian grain handlers into the Federation. Co-operative Bulk Handling (CBH), Western Australia's sole grain handling co-operative, commenced full operation of the technologically advanced Kwinana plant in May 1977. Kwinana replaced the old North Fremantle terminal and became the major grain outlet for Western Australia. When the Australian Workers' Union sought a new award which did not make gains to reflect the advanced technology of the plant, 81 grain handlers petitioned to join the WWF. The company refused to recognise the /WF's coverage, and initiated a lockout of the grain handlers in July 1979 and recruited additional AWU members to operate the plant. The lockout ended when the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) ruled that CBH recognise dual union membership until coverage was finally settled, but CBH refused to put 12 active unionists and delegates back to work for several weeks (although excluded from the plant they remained on pay). Two key delegates were kept at home, on pay, for two years. The industrial and legal disputes with CBH, which had the support of the AWU, over coverage of Kwinana and ocher coastal terminals continued until 1983. Assistant General Secretary Norm Docker, with Fremantle Branch Secretary Ron Inkster, played a leading role in these battles. In 1983 the WWF won recognition of its right to cover grain handlers at Kwinana. Coverage of all other coastal terminals, as well as that of grain handling members of the WWF in other ports such as

1977-1993

249

In the late 1970s Australian unions again operated in an atmosphere of coercive legislation. The Fraser· Coalition Government created the Industrial Relations Bureau which had special powers and penalties, but it virtually never functioned because of trade union opposition. More serious was the use of legislation and authorities designed for other purposes: the Trade Practices Act, and the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Prices Justification Tribunal was used as a vehicle to inhibit employers granting wage or condition increases, and usurped the role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Graver still was the secondary boycott legislation (Sections 45D and 45E) of the Trade Practices Act. The penalty provisions of the Act were severe and extensive up to $250 000 for an organisation or $50 000 for an individual, plus liability to unlimited civil damages. The amendments prohibited such industrial action as sympathy bans and strikes; action designed to secure industrial ends but performed within a political context (such as opposition to new industrial legislation or protests against government economic or industry policy); industrial action designed to secure certain monetary gains through the political process (such as Medibank strikes and tax reform action); and other "political" acts such as green bans, demarcation disputes, and action taken to ensure peripheral employment benefits. (Source:Maritime Worker, 12 September 1978, p.10.)

Albany and Geraldton, was returned to the AWU. CBH locked our WWF grain handling members at Kwinana again, after unsuccessful attempts by the union to settle the terms of a new federal award following the 1983 decision. Writs for damages were issued by the company against the union and individual workers. In response a ban was imposed on CBH wheat in ports throughout Australia. The dispute was settled when the writs were withdrawn and the WWF award covering grain handlers was issued. It mirrored the AWU award operating in other coastal terminals, but delayed the improved wages and conditions which were later gained by the Federation. In 1987 there was further conflict with CBH when the company sought an amendment to the Western Australian grain industry award, which applied to AWU members, to reduce shift loadings. In June 1987 Commissioner Sweeney's decision slashed loadings for shift work for periods longer than six weeks. The Federation led an industrial and publicity campaign, in the rural press, and achieved united action between the WWF and the AWU. After years of union conflict in the grain industry, the AWU donated $2000 towards the costs of the publicity campaign. The campaign was co-ordinated by the Federation's new Fremantle Branch Secretary Vic Slater, and Assistant General

Secretary Norm Docker led a successful appeal to a full bench of the IRC against the reduction of the shift loadings. The WWF's relationship with CBH remained difficult throughout the 1980s.

250

Vharfies

The Port Jackson-Port Botany waterfront in Sydney was stopped for four days in a three-way dispute in August 1980, in which the WWF and the Transport Workers' Union (TWU) aligned against the Storemen and Packers' Union (SPU). The dispute was part of a campaign to

achieve a system which would provide Federation members with maximum protection against work losses resulting from structural change in the industry. The SPU and the Federated Clerks' Union (FCU) had coverage of the work at inland container depots, and the TWU did the transportation to and from those, as well as terminals on the waterfront in which the WWF had coverage. The opening of a new container terminal at Port Botany resulted in a reorganisation of container work done by WWF members at the two Port Jackson terminals, with the consequence that there al was a considerable reduction in the Vic Slater. Freman lie numbers of men employed there. and WA Branch TWU and the WWF banned the movement of containers and the Secretary- later SPU imposed bans on cargo to and from vessels in Botany Bay. The joint National WWF and the TWU issued a declaration on the principles of cargo Association movement which asserted the traditional rights of their members to Secretary. protect the areas of work which provided their jobs. The TWU and the WWF also reached an amicable agreement about demarcation of work in the Botany Bay terminals. The New South Wales cabinet announced the establishment of a packing and unpacking depot at the Australian National Line's Botany Bay terminal in late 1980, a decision welcomed by the Federation which had made a joint submission with the TWU on the issue. The WWF automatically had the right to the work there. The SPU objected and immediately retaliated, placing a ban on inland services, on the grounds that the new depot would jeopardise its members' employment at inland depots. In 1983 the WWF gained coverage of manning in some inland

1977-1993

25 1

for all waterfront workers, which was negotiated on their behalf by the WWF under ACTU auspices. The tradesmen were demanding a higher race to maintain their wage relativity, as skilled workers compared to the semi-skilled waterside workers. The WWF supported their claims, but only through the process of joint negotiations between all waterfront unions and the employers, which were scheduled for May 1982. The tradesmen refused to wait and the ensuing strike was interpreted as exhibiting indifference towards the lower paid workers who bore the

brunt of the industrial action. When employers again threatened to stand down wharfies, Fitzgibbon declared such threats would not happen again, and retracted his earlier undertakings not to recruit amongst tradesmen. There were bitter recriminations between Fitzgibbon and John Halfpenny, the Victorian Secretary of the AMWSU.

The tradesmen's strike, which held up more than a hundred ships and millions of dollars worth of cargo, was one of more than seventy waterfront strikes in 1981. The WWF was responsible for only a small proportion of these but was nevertheless routinely blamed, although the disputes were often caused by other unions. That year several unions used the waterfront as their battleground and during a single period in Melbourne the TWU, which was arguing with the Victorian Government over license fees, put a ban on the strategic and easily organised cargo to the waterfront. The rail unions, in dispute with the same government over the closure of certain branch lines, did likewise. and the Hospital Employees' Union, which was in dispute with a number of hospitals well away from the docks, pulled out its members who provided the first aid service on the waterfront. (This group subsequently joined the WWF.) In all cases the disputes were referred to as "waterfront" by the press, an expression misunderstood by the public as being caused by wharfies. With the assistance of the ACTU the tradesmen's strike was

eventually settled, but the Federation's campaign for an industry union went ahead. It had the approval of the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour, and the Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, Ian Viner, amongst others. They saw it as offering more rational union organisation which would reduce demarcation disputes on the waterfront. Forty ETU and AMWSU tradesmen from Seatainer terminals in White Bay in Sydney signed up with the WWF when they

depots, as well as those on the waterfront, but coverage of depot work remained a source of irritation and dispute throughout the 1980s. In December 1981 a month-long dispute of tradesmen on the

transferred to Botany Bay, although one version of these events described the transfer as not exactly voluntary. Management claimed it was in effect under a threat from the WWF that industrial action would occur unless it employed men from a list of applicants the WWF

waterfront began when their unions rejected the $26.40 increase gained

supported. Later, tradesmen employed at Union Bulkships in Melbourne

252

Wharfies

1977-1993

253

1978 he had been amongst the first group of tradesmen from Glebe Island terminal to join the WWF. The Tradesmen's Organiser position was subsequently renamed General Organiser to reflect its changed responsibilities, and Coombs continued in that position until he became Assistant General Secretary in 1988. The next major step in the WWF's campaign for industry unionism was a Federal Court decision in 1983 which granted coverage to the WWF of rally clerks on the wharves, and at inland depots. (Inland depots were a bonus which the WWF had not expected.) The clerks were formerly members of the right wing FCU. Coverage of the clerks was not associated with industrial disputation as had happened with the ETU and AMWSU members who crossed over, but occurred when clerks in Sydney sought WWF membership.° Key Sydney figures in the clerk's conversion were Warren Small and John Hills. Small subsequently became Federal Organiser for clerks in the WWF and Hills became Secretary of the Sydney clerks' branch, and later President of the combined Sydney Branch. As a Federal Officer, Small visited other

Position statement 1987

Charlie Fitzgibbon

addressing

and at Fisherman's Island in Brisbane also joined the WWF.D ,'® ETU and he AMWSU renewed their application for meeting with ,,",""""© "eranuon m response co these moves. Bae in Apa Melbourne Branch e e eral ourt released the WWF from its undertaking not to officials L to R enro I ETU and AMWSU mem b ers, and allowed it to expand its "Bunna" Walsh later a Victorian MP Geoff cov_erage to include tradesmen working on the waterfront. Ii The Swayn, Anders Bull. d ecision was a landmark, . , an id one faavoure:d b y the employers in part "Flash" Gardon and b"7,,, ecause o f c h angmg perceptic h WW'F As one journalist , wrote: eptionsoff the Harry Saunders. • LS ;n~ reviled union is being increasingly recognised as the focal point tor e establishment of a more rational waterfront".15 numbers of ttra d esmen were joining . . . F dAs I increasing Of6 the WWF. the Melbourne stopwork

,"" e trad

"©esonded Frank Sharkey the tradesmen's delegate from ntainer erminals Austr li: Liimitec d +, ustratia

D to act as temporary terminal,

"?""®"® ganiser. Sharkey was an activist and former long term mem er 0 . ol theh AMWSU · A b a II ot for the position of Tradesmen's '#@niser was held in July 1982 with Sharkey and John Coombs as the h I . won the election. Coombs had originally joined

conten ers· Coombs WWF %

the

e in 1968 • was an active · d ieiegate I on the conventional fr water om an becar WWF d I d S . d• . me e egate at the Consolidated Cargo

{"[,%,2" 'namer he wwr won coverage hare. He jomcd •c• two years later, after he sat the Tradesmen's Rights Ccrtiticate (an altern; : ative to an apprenticeship) and became a fitter. In

In response to the direction it feared the Stevedoring Industry Review Committee was taking, the WWF released a Position Statement in late 1987 which detailed the bleak outlook for workers in the stevedoring industry and the union's proposals to protect them: The problems facing Australian maritime workers are identical with those facing the industry world-wide - the dual factors of new technology and the slump in world trade have devastated waterfront worker numbers everywhere.

The Federation's five basic objectives to protect its short and medium term interests were: to maintain employment at the highest possible level through the development of coastal shipping and the attraction of lost work (such as packing and unpacking) back to the waterfront; the protection of small and medium sized ports and their communities; improved early retirement and redundancy payments for those leaving the industry; establishment of higher classifications for current members and new recruits, with development of career paths; increased involvement in the conduct of the industry by such commercial and competitive means as were necessary and by insistence on the full application of the principles of industrial democracy. The union said its long term interests were linked inevitably with other maritime unions and it intended to proceed towards amalgamation. The union's ultimate objective was the establishment of a maritime federation to provide maximum protection for all its members. (Source: Federal Council. Minutes, 24 September 1987.)

254

Vharfies

ports and persuaded a majority of clerks to switch to the WWE Melbourne was the most difficult port because it was the home of the old Grouper element which still had residual adherents in the FCU. Peter Bergin was a strong supporter of the Melbourne clerks' move to the WWE and he became the first clerks' branch Secretary in that port. By September 1983 the Federation had admitted 1200 tally clerks in various states."

The decisions granting coverage of the clerks and tradesmen gave the Federation the bones of an industry union, a fundamental change in its membership structure which would become crucial to its survival in the perilous years ahead. The achievement of a functioning industry union was Charlie Fitzgibbon's final legacy to the union he led for more than twenty years.

The Hawke Government and the Prices and Incomes Accord The Federal Hawke Labor Government was elected amidst serious economic decline and growing unemployment in March 1983. A key factor in the Labor Parry's victory was the proposed Prices and Incomes Accord, which promised a return to centralised wage fixing, price control, improvements in the social wage, tax reform and job creation (amongst many other things), by agreement between government, and the unions. Although the Accord was widely accepted in labour movement circles, and was endorsed by 22 to 2 at the WWF's 1985 Federal Council, many trade unionists felt it disadvantaged workers by weakening rank and file involvement in industrial claims. As Senior Vice-President of the ACTU, Fitzgibbon was an architect of the Accord, and he achieved a high and very favourable profile at the first stage in the Accord's implementation after the government took office, the April Economic Summit in 1983. The Summit was attended by representatives of business, Federal and State Governments, and the ACTIJ. Fitzgibbon praised the Accord to businessmen, who were: .. on the edges of their seats, their eyes riveted to this short, grey-haired, nationally nondescript trade unionist, who is one of the nation's most powerful orators. Fitzgibbon's voice is not Yul Brynner's. He is a Newcastle boy, from Carrington, Shortland and Cook's Hill. He speaks in a high pitch, almost a whine, the sort of voice which grates in a bar. But this bloke with the standard post-depression education, and the standard post-depression street wisdom had the businessmen riveted. He scored the most spontaneous applause of the Summit.19

255

1977-1993

Fitzgibbon asked the employers if they could afford not to return to a centralised wage system, as the ACTU wanted. It would adjust wages according to price movements and the ACTU was prepared to accept it was only achievable over time. He strongly rejected employer claims that unions were solely responsible for the wages explosions of 1974 and 1982, and the breakdown of the wage indexation system between 1975 and 1981. He argued that employers, not unions, had sought to destroy the basic wage and margins systems, and that they offered over-award payments and reached agreements outside the system in good times and when there were shortages of labour. Such actions put pressure on other unions to make further demands outside indexation, escalating the spiral. Fitzgibbon assured the employers that the ACTU would meet its side of the bargain provided there was a commitment to a centralised wage fixing system and supporting policies. The ACTU wanted the maintenance of real wages and a fair adjustment of wages on an egalitarian and regular basis, but "the ACTU accepts that that can only be sustained if we tum the economy around and in fact produce the circumstances under which it can be sustained" he said.'®

The Sydney Branch WWF "Alternative

Olympics" organised as a protest against

Charlie Fitzgibbon retires

Minister Fraser's decision not to send an Australian team to the Moscow

The appearance at the Summit was the final public performance in a. long and significant career in the labour movement for Charlie

Olympics after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

D ·"¥ " re

%,

'f' 0:,

• l '.a

!!!I

Prime

256

VVharfies

The first full time A-registered woman to work as a wharfie was Sandra Elliman 21 in Townsville in 1989. Her grandfather; father and brother were also wharfies. A Townsville branch vote in the 1970s had refused to allow women to join the branch but this position was later rescinded. Like all other waterside workers, Elliman sat for- five written tests to assess her general intelligence and aptitude for the demands of wharf work, and then had to go before a selection panel of representatives of the local branch and the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour Branch Secretary Timms said "I knew it had to happen .... 1 remember visiting the USSR and other ports back in the sixties and seeing the women working there alongside the men. I'm all for it" (Source: Maritime

Worker, August I 989, p.18.)

resigned from the general secretaryship of the Federation 1983 at the age of 61, citing "a wish to spend more time at home than I am able to do now" as his reason.' Although he had once been President of the Newcastle and Charleston branches of the ALP, a member of the New South Wales ALP State Executive, and was ~ncouraged by the party to run for office, Fitzgibbon 's chosen forum eyond the WWF was in the ACTU, where he was factionally aligned with the centre-left. There he expanded WWF influence well beyond its numerical representatic in 1967 on.He te bcvccame r;Transport Group representative was influential in elevating Bob Hawke to the ACTU P'®@ency two years later, ushering in a new and dynamic era of policy ormation. Hawke and Fitzgibbon became close friends the latter "#the former with policy, strategy and tactics. Hawke wanted ,'['C C"® scceed him as President should he go to Parliament. bur 15 h d attempt to create the position of Executive Vice-President to Fitzgibbon. He

in May

and

"""?"@®roan ofgc ad tat faccons a he fr

Irom t

,,

'$I s. A similar political combination removed Fitzgibbon e ACTU E • .

. xecuttve m I 9 79 but he soon returned and was id . Fitzgibbon "the b - reSi _en t m 198 l. Wh ilst EII ercam p calls D'Alr est potential ACTU President who never was",?? puget describes him as: I d Senior Vice-Pr etlectec

• a man of notabl ibiln h e a I ity, especially in administration and in framing I . which resolutions wold.., rathe fr 2@! outwit or sidestep ambushes from the Right. His er trosty manner, h; led c. " is command of language and his capacity for sarcasm many to tear him.±

In 1972 Fitzgibbon b al L,, ?came Australian Workers' Delegate to the na. .a our Org · · . f th and two years later was elecued ChaIrman o the Do k {@nisation , S ck:ers' icction of the International Transport Internatior

1977-1993

257

Workers' Federation. ln spite of administering the WWF through a period of serious membership decline (from about 21 000 to 8000_), Fitzgibbon maintained the union's influence and his period of leadership 24 saw industrial stability on the waterfront unknown in earlier decades. The legacies of his years include the attainment of permanency in 1967, establishment of the Waterside Workers' Credit Union in 1970 ( which had assets of $74 million by 1992), voluntary redundancy in 1972 and generous redundancy and superannuation arrangements, all of which resulted from the strategies developed under his leadership to deal with the impact of containerisation. Fitzgibbon presided over a period of deep change in waterfront culture brought about by technological changes. Far smaller numbers of workers organised by company employment prevented the daily contact of the pick-ups of earlier years, where rank and file discussion about industrial and political issues, and decisions about action, took place. Following containerisation, with a crane driver isolated 30 metres in the air, and a very small number of workers spread around a vast container terminal, there was "little chance of discussion about social questions, political questions, about questions of peace and war".

Norm Docker: a year in the top job In late 1983 Assistant General Secretary Norm Docker was elected General Secretary of the Federation, a position many felt would have been his years earlier if he had been selected as the Communist Party candidate in 1961. Docker was opposed for the position by Sydney rank and filer Peter Ellston ( who ran in several elections with the support of Sydney bookshop proprietor Bob Gould), in a well financed campaign. Docker won 4915 votes to 2360. He was the longest serving Federal Officer in the history of the union and was an active communist most of his life. He worked as New South Wales country organiser for a number of unions before he spent a short period as a working wharf labourer in the port of Sydney. He was appointed Industrial and Research Officer for the Federation in April 1951 and held the job until 1968, from 1961 as the elected candidate for the position. A Rules change in 1968 allowed his appointment as Acting General Secretary when the General Secretary was absent, and in 1974 his title was changed to Assistant General Secretary, to which he was always re-elected unopposed. Docker was a highly accomplished advocate for the Federation who comfortably straddled the profound differences between the Healy and Fitzgibbon periods. He challenged the architects of the penal offensive during the Menzies years and played a leading role in submissions and

258

Wharfies

argument in both the Tait Inquiry of 1954-56 and the Woodward Conference of 1965-68. He appeared in countless arbitration cases on

behalf of the Federation throughout the decades and immeasurably assist_cd WWF campaigns on permanency, guaranteed weekly wages, pensions and redundancy provisions. From 1977 he was WWF representative on the Federal Coordinating Committee and Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council and was also a member of the ACTU Industrial Legislation Committee and a member of the Transport Industries Advisory Council." At Docker's retirement the former President of the Arbitration Commission, Sir John Moore, described him as the greatest advocate the trade union movement ever had:- Docker resigned due to ill-health in July 1984, but he continued to assist the Federation as a consultant in many of its cases. His skills and experience were nor easily replaced and the gap he left was eventually filled when restructuring in the WWF created the position of Research Officer in 1988, to which Greg Combet was appointed. Norm Docker died from leukemia in 1992. Federal Officers of

the WWF meet with their New

Recession, and Tas Bull

counterparts in

In late1982 the Fraser Government's "wage pause" had hardened into a freeze" which was effectively endorsed by (mostly Labor) State

1984.

Premiers at their conference that year. Since the end of wage indexation

Zealand

1977-1993

259

in 1981 the WWF and other stevedoring unions had collectively bargained for wage increases higher than those achieved by most other unions: between 1981 and 1983 the metal trades had gained $39.00 while the WWF had achieved $56.00 in total increases ro the base rate for most of its members. But by 1983 there was widespread acceptance of the freeze in labour movement circles. In the WWF's view, the mass media had erroneously convinced wage earners that one worker's increase meant another's job.° In May 1983 new Labor Treasurer Paul Keating brought in a "mini-budget" which among other measures made major changes to lump sum retirement benefits, increasing the tax on non-employee contributions from 5 per cent to between 30 and 60 per cent. The change had a great impact on the pay ours of the growing numbers of redundant waterside workers. Ir was in this economic climate that the negotiations for the 1984 WWF two year contract rook place. Most issues were successfully negotiated under the constraints of the Accord, but the sticking point was the WWF's claim for an improved early retirement scheme which the employers rejected. According to then Acting General Secretary Bull, the employers failed ro find common ground among themselves and "the inability, unwillingness (or both) of employers to properly use the collective bargaining process" led to a breakdown in talks, plunging industrial relations to "their worst level for many years". Since depressed economic circumstances made a stoppage inadvisable, members were advised ro show their anger by a withdrawal of job co-operation, effectively a work-to-rules campaign. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Arbitration Commission where the rejection of compulsory redundancy was reaffirmed. In an important move, tradesmen and clerks were also brought within this provision. On the l6th of September 1986, 1Ol wharfies went to Parliament House in Canberra to

tell the Hawke Labor Government that a large section of the Australian community was not happy with its performance in the major areas of wages, unemployment, social security, education, health, migrant issues and uranium. They were greeted by 200 police, accompanied by a further 200 police in reserve. The rally was small, attributable to

uncertainty within the left of the trade union movement about its relationship with the

government it had helped to elect. Issues ,-aised at the rally included the erosion of wage levels by discounting; deregulation of the economy and devaluation of the Australian dollar: deferral of tax cuts; increased investment and taxation allowances: corporate raiders allowed to operate like "social vandals"; introduction of fees for higher education; rising unemployment: and increasing health costs - all while business boasted record profits. (Source: Maritime Worker, October/lovember I 986, p.13.)

260

Wharfies

The qualifying age for the early retirement scheme was reduced from 62

was extended to cover all Federation members; and the superannuation benefit was increased by 15 per cent. In return, the WWF agreed to lift restrictions it had placed on the movement of ships to 60, it

and business between terminal and conventional stevedoring operators,

providing there was no loss of work to traditional A-register watersiders.>

Assistant General Secretary and former Federal Organiser Tas Bull was appointed acting General Secretary on Docker's resignation in 1984 and in July 1985 was confirmed General Secretary with 63 per cent of the vote. Ellston also ran for the position again, achieving 267 4 votes to Bull's 4589.° Although a Labor Government ostensibly sympathetic to

trade unions was in power federally, the years ahead would test the \WW/F's mettle to a degree it had rarely experienced. Australia was in the

midst of the international recession in 1983, which was a crisis for the waterfront industry. The combination of record unemployment (the

worst since the Great Depression) and inflation rates above 1 O per cent, meant a drop in purchasing power, a decline of economic activity and a marked fall in Australia's import trade. Because of economic problems experienced by Australia's major trading partners exports of minerals and other primary products fell drastically, all combining to reduce demand for stevedoring. When a special one-off redundancy formula was developed in 1983, 459 men left Australia's stevedoring workforce.'

Waterfront reform Along with the Accord, the Hawke Labor Government embarked on extensive reform of the Australian economy. Central elements in this program were rationalisation of coastal shipping and the waterfront. To deal with coastal shipping a Shipping Industry Reform Authority was established, following an all-party overseas visit to examine trends aboard vessels from traditional maritime nations. Waterfront reform focussed on the reduction of shore-based shipping costs, which were seen as a crucially important factor in Australia's international competitiveness. The government commenced its waterfront strategy in July 1984 with the Shore-Based Shipping Costs Seminar. It was convened by Federal Minister for Transport Peter Morris, with the purpose of eliminating inefficiency in stevedoring and shore-based transport. The WWF was represented at the seminar by Assistant General Secretary Tas Bull. Bull's paper to the seminar staked the Federation's claim to have a determining role in any changes which might occur in the stevedoring

1977-1993

26 I

industry, on the grounds of the sacrifices its members had made and their contribution to the development and industry stability: by 1984 Federation membership had dropped to 6500, mainly due to new technologies. The wide use of interport transfer and supplementary casual labour in non-capital city ports, with Federation agreement, contributed to this process. The union feared further membership loss. So few had been recruited to the industry (less than a hundred since 1975), that the average age of watersiders was now 49.9. Extremely heavy membership loss and massive technological change had occurred with little industrial difficulty, in return for which the union asserted its

right to the industrial standards it had established, and to reasonable claims in the future. The Federation's pursuit of an industry union had aided industry stability, Bull argued, but although the employers benefited from this, they resisted passing on the benefits of Federation membership to the new categories of workers. Members lived with the constant threat of retrenchment and in spite of a 75 per cent reduction in membership over about thirty years, options for early retirement remained inadequate. Bull added that many positive changes in the industry, subsequently acknowledged by all to be necessary, had been initiated by the Federation. He cited labour registration during World War II; interport transfer of labour in the late 1960s; permanent employment and the industry superannuation scheme in 1967; and restructuring, guaranteed wages and a supplementary labour system for small ports during the early 1970s. He concluded: We are prepared to put the past behind, and to work with the government

and employers for an efficient industry= provided the others play their part. How the way forward is tackled rests as much with employers (and

Government) as us. The opportunity is there. The relatively innocuous Shore-Based Shipping Costs Seminar was merely the first move in a long and relentless campaign for reform on the waterfront, with which the WWF was compelled to co-operate. Besides Federal and State Governments, other groups which imposed pressure on the WWF at various stages included the overseas shipping companies, the Shippers' Council, Chamber of Shipping, the National Farmers' Federation (NFF), the Wheat Board, the Grains Council, the

Mines and Metals Association, port and harbour authorities and. less visibly, freight forwarders and transport companies. The media took an intense interest in the process and editorials calling for the waterfront to

be brought under control were frequent.

262

Wharfies

Some stevedoring companies were initially unenthusiastic about

1977-1993

263

of the reform process was increased competition, at the end of the period the number of stevedoring companies was reduced from five in

receipt, and the ship; identified factors which inhibited maximum operational efficiency; and determined practical measures to increase efficiency and lower the cost of the land-based elements of the process. Attendance at the Task Force was extraordinarily time consuming, and although the Federation was also involved in several state inquiries at

Melbourne and four in Sydney to two in each.)

the same time, it could ill-afford not to participate.

In the following years the Federation's membership numbers would drop still further and many work practices and some hard won conditions would be lost. Double headers (two successive shifts) were reintroduced and the use of supplementary labour was extended to capital city ports. Longer hours were compensated with increased earnings, but many older members saw the concessions as a step backwards. By the end of the reform period in 1992 the industry was substantially revamped. Despite the changes and setbacks the WWF was judged by the ITWF to have survived the process better than dockers' unions enduring similar circumstances in the industry from Britain, New Zealand, France, Spain or Italy.

The Task Force occurred in an anti-union atmosphere generated by the recession, with attacks on unions coming from every quarter. The Federation participated in the inquiry on the proviso that it would not be an "inquisition", but although a reasonably positive outcome was anticipated, Assistant General Secretary Bull said, "We must recognise there are serious problems ahead of us". He pointed out that the industry was going through a real "shakeout", and direct attacks on the union were very likely. "We will need every bit of discipline, unity and flexibility if we are going to get through this" he said. The number of stand downs occurring, and the number of disputes being referred to the IRC rather than being settled by negotiation, were part of the general context of an attack on the trade union movement which should be

Task Force on shore-based shipping costs

forcibly brought to the attention of WWF members, Bull added."

participating in change, because of the extent to which it might affect them, but they eventually agreed. (Although one of the main objectives

The upshot of the Seminar was the establishment of the Shore-Based Shipping Costs Task Force. It commenced in late 1984 and ran for 18 months. The Task Force was chaired by Ian Webber, Managing Director of Mayne Nickless, and included representatives of the industry and unions, including Tas Bull for the WWF, Ivan Hodgson from the TWU, and Simon Crean, ACIU President. ln the midst of widespread agreement about the need to maximise efficiency in the land-based aspects of the movement of sea cargoes, the Task Force examined overall efficiency in the movement of cargo between the point of dispatch or In Jim Healy's time the first national headquarters owned by the Federation was purchased at No.52 Phillip Street, Sydney and named "Unity House". The federal office remained there until 1969, when it moved temporarily to ADC House in Millers Point. New quarters were established when permanent space became available at the new Labor Council building at the Chinatown end of Sussex Street. These offices remained the Federation's centre until I98 when the union, with its credit union, purchased a one-third share in a newly

refurbished building at No.365 Sussex Street with the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union. In 1989 the Phillip Street site was sold, and in 1990 the Federal Council and the Board of the credit union decided to purchase the Sussex Street building. It now houses the federal offices of the amalgamated Maritime Union of Australia and the Central New South Wales Branch.

The Federation was undeniably vulnerable on certain points, in particular some restrictive work practices which members often regarded as industrial conditions. But as Federal Councillor and Melbourne Branch Secretary Claude Cumberlidge pointed out to the 1985 Federal Council, the very existence of restrictive work practices was a threat: We have tried to tell the members that at some time the practice of telling

the employers how many containers they will handle, what time they will knock off, etc, will work against chem, but we cannot convince chem of chis. They look on it as "scare" tactics by the officials.

In spite of the Task Force's continuing inquiries, an ominous letter from the Association of Employers of Waterfront Labour was received by the union at this time, underlining the officials' concerns and signalling the employers' intent. The letter requested a meeting with the General Secretary to discuss methods by which: efficiency might be improved; inefficiencies and work practices might be removed; significant improvements in productivity could be achieved; and ways of ensuring that existing awards, agreements and dispute avoidance procedures should be observed. The letter said: We have already discussed this matter with the Government and we have been advised of the Government's view regarding the importance of

264

Vhar fies

ensuring the efficiency of the industry having regard to its impact on Australia's ability to compete on world markets.

The letter heightened the Federation's concern about the immediate future. Federal Council resolved that members should be fully advised of the likelihood of serious attacks on the Federation and other stevedoring unions and called on branches and members to prepare themselves so the union could defend itself.

Negotiations for the Federation's 1986-88 contract were also conducted in this adverse climate, and the parties failed to reach agreement over superannuation and early retirement schemes. A four day stoppage (quite rare for the Federation by this stage) in July 1986, which had the support of the ACTU, was the result. A new superannuation deal and industry contract were won, but it was "one of the toughest power struggles on the Australian waterfront for more than a decade". There was a right wing backlash against the stoppage in the media, the conservative Opposition called for armed troops to load the ships, and watersiders were called "everything from bastards to traitors .... Wharfies were even credited with the fall of the Australian dollar and agitation on the stock exchange!"®

Press and radio accused the Federation of "shutting down" all Australian trade as well as jeopardising new contracts and allowing perishables to rot on the docks, although the union had announced exemptions which were confirmed by press releases issued by grain boards and other organisations. The WWF was particularly incensed by the anti-Federation stance of John Laws, talkback radio host on Sydney's 2GB. An attempt by General Secretary Bull to debate Laws on air became "one of the best radio 'donnybrooks' ever".

When the Task Force's report was released it noted the general public perception that whatever went wrong on the waterfront was the fault of the unions. It strongly rejected this as a "narrow" view which incorrectly attributed poor waterfront performance to the union because of its members' higher than average earnings and working conditions, restrictive work practices and the apparently higher than average level of waterfront disputes.

The Task Force actually found that the highest costs for containers occurred not at sea or when they were being moved between ship and land, but when they travelled between what were in effect two distinct and virtually independent systems at work on the waterfront. One was for shipping lines, container terminals and depot operators; the other was for importers and exporters, carriers and customs. There was little co-ordination between the two, resulting in delays of hours or even days

1977-1993

265

before pick-up of containers for transportation, unpacking and final delivery. Poor industrial relations; a proliferation of unions outside the industry; poor quality and sparsity of equipment; an inefficient freight train service; and bureaucratic port authorities, all also contributed to the confusion, which was to blame for the high costs and delays which so disadvantaged Australian trade. The Task Force report also highlighted the role which the conflicting aims of unions and management played in poor industry performance. The unions' aim of job security was in direct contradiction to the employers' aim of dispensing with more workers. Improved industrial relations were necessary if productivity was to improve. The report recommended remuneration and time off without loss of job security to increase productivity; skill training and promotions; talks and briefings between both groups; fair distribution of the benefits of higher productivity between employers, labour and users; and industrial democracy with regular informal meetings between management, employees and union officials. The report included several suggestions for improved management of the industry itself: modern electronic communications systems; stronger commercial and/or contractual links between industry groups; vehicle

booking schemes for trucks; closer consultations between shipping and stevedoring companies, and railways, especially to negotiate transport costs; and firm publicly available commercial guidelines on pricing policies and operations from port authorities."

In spite of the report's even-handedness, attacks against the Federation still occurred in sections of the media. Business Review Weekly pointed to "entrenched over-manning" and "restrictive work practices", and blamed "opportunistic unions" for "raking advantage" of management to "entrench inefficient work practices". The article declared: Dirt money, cold money, stooping money, rain money, idle time and the secret "nickoff" roster are symptoms of the terrible malaise on docks around Australia .... The waterfront, the most crucial link in our trade chain, is a

shambles.

The Stevedoring Industry Review Committee and the Interstate Commission The Federation felt that following the establishment of the costs Task Force in 1984, some form of more broad ranging inquiry was inevitable. The union's strategy was to limit any such inquiry to the industry

266

Wharfies

parties, so that only those with a practical knowledge of the industry would be determining events, far preferable to an investigation by the Industries Assistance Commission, a formal judicial inquiry, or as the Opposition wanted, a Royal Commission. For similar reasons employers were also reluctant to participate in an inquiry, so with a view to carrying out some form of self-regulation of the industry, unions and the employers agreed to establish the Stevedoring Industry Review Committee (SIRC) during fthe 1986-88 contract negotiations. a The WWF, the Australian Foremen ·1 Stevedores' Association, the '! "% Australian Stevedoring Super·~,~ ~ ~ visors' Association, the Federated ~ -2 l! .:= ST A!J Miscellaneous Workers' Union (all Rupert Lockwood unions with members on the (R), long time waterfront), the ACTU and the employers were represented on the editor of the SIRC, which was chaired by Sir John Moore, former President of the Maritime Worker. Arbitration Commission and who was regarded favourably by all parties. at the launch of his book Ship to Moore soon toured all the ports in which the SIRC was interested, in Shore. a history of the company of WWF Assistant General Secretary Leo Lenane, and the Melbourne other representatives. WWF Branch, with The government announced that in addition to 1986-88 contract Prime Niinister Bob matters, the SIRC would also deal with Task Force report Hawke. recommendations which directly related to the stevedoring industry, including amongst many others: productivity and efficiency; restrictive work practices; dispute settlement procedures; management practices; and accountability of all parties. Three other committees would also be formed to cover specific areas in the industry. Overseeing all these bodies would be the Interstate Commission (!SC), with the reserve powers of a Royal Commission to intervene at any time and undertake inquiries on its own initiative. The Federation feared the focus of SIRC inquiries would be on restrictive work practices, which would justify an attack on conditions. The union argued that a whole package for the industry was necessary to improve productivity. Internally, the union saw the need to develop

1977-1993

267

a strategic plan for itself over the next few years, because it feared the SIRC would be the vehicle to "challenge fundamental conditions" of the Federation and other stevedoring unions. Early in 1987 the Federation warned: It is important members understand the significance of [the SIRC] and... make sure the Federation is protected at job level.... Employer groups will attempt to shift the responsibility for industry ills, real or imagined, including their own incompetence, onto our members and other workers. In December 1986 the AEWL submitted a list of 270 items to the SIRC. alleging restrictive work practices, and good coverage in the media was given to employer complaints.'7 The WWF regarded the AEWL move as the "gravest threat" faced by the Federation since the 1954-56 Tait Inquiry. (That had resulted in the union, to its long term detriment, being excluded from new bulk sugar installations and private berths handling coal, iron ore, bauxite, woodchip and other bulk cargoes.) The Federation argued that a number of the AEWL allegations were completely untrue and that the majority were arrangements entered into by employers at job level. by formal agreement between employers and the Federation or its Branches, or by decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Federal Council said the union and its membership would resist attacks on award provisions and genuine working conditions, and endorsed the joint statement of the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the ACTU, which aimed at resolving the alleged restrictive

ASIO tap on Sydney Branch phones: 1981 · · EmpIoyees' Association . at the Some Sydney members of the Australian Telecommunications Castlereagh Street telephone exchange were asked by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to tap the personal unlisted telephone line in the Federation office of Sydney Branch Secretary Tom Supple. Although the Telecommunications mp oyees . ASIO .in bugging • the phones h b:' "there was a general had long co-operated with off embassies, :

c

Er

·l

·'

Association

feeling of outrage among technicians at City South that the privacy of a fellow unionist was being invaded". In the absence of a written wan-ant. the Association argued that it was an

offence to intercept telephone conversations and its members could be in breach of the Telecommunications Act if they tapped Supple's phone. 'leadfer',.. N{ationa . I Times, 12-18 July 1981, (Source: Julianne Schultz, "Technicians angry as ASIO bugs union

268

Wharfies

practices in a positive way at grass roots level by negotiations between the parties involved. Work practices were being attacked because productivity was of great concern during the recession, but the Federation argued that productivity had in fact increased enormously since containerisation. There had been a 75 per cent cut in the workforce, substantial increases in tonnages, and a 42 per cent increase in productivity between 1980 and 1984. If productivity was to be increased further, in the union's view, it must be done in such a way that stevedoring industry workers, the community and the Australian economy all shared the benefits. An industry development program was needed which would require industrial democracy and, because the industry was dominated by overseas interests, encourage the growth of Australian ownership and control. The union argued that industry charges should be open to public scrutiny and, if Australian ownership was extended, freight rares and stevedoring costs would cease to be a major burden on the Australian community and the balance of payments. On the basis of such a program the Federation would develop an industry package which protected employment and provided real benefits to its membership out of any further improvements in efficiency and productiviry. The moor point for the Federation in the direction the SIRC was raking was the issue already raised by the Task Force report. Increased productiviry (through the abolition of various so-called work practices or any other method) inevitably meant a reduction in manning levels, with serious consequences for the Federation and its membership. The fundamental question for the Federation was how far it should accommodate the demands which were being made upon it. The union believed its options were limited: it could either work its way through the SIRC, countering employer claims with its own; or refuse ro cooperate and become isolated, with unpredictable consequences.® Working with the SIRC was the Federation's only viable option and in 1987 the union decided to pursue a 4.0 per cent increase, under rhe Accord's so-called "second tier" avenue. The AEWL consistently opposed the move bur in August of that year, with the support of the ACTU, the Federation determined to press ahead with the claim.®The increase was gained without the anticipated national action, but General Secretary Bull later had to defend the concessions in work practices with which it was achieved: If in fact the major struggle on behalf of this Federation is all about maintaining manning scales so more people can "nick" then we arc acting

1977-1993

269

against the interests of our own union. Do we contemplate a major battle to maintain manning so more people can have the "nick", is that really what our membership wants? We know that ninety nine percent of what we exchanged for the four percent of the second tier would have to be conceded, with or without a second tier increase' A renewed campaign against the WWF began in 1988, in the midst of an upsurge of "new right" ideology, which among other things promoted an extreme form of anti-unionism. The campaign took the form of negative press reports and submissions to the ISC. primarily from the NFF and the Australian Port and Marine Authority. The Port and Marine Authority was an unexpected critic, but the Farmers' Federation had been an open opponent of the WWF for some time, blaming the union exclusively for high waterfront costs, and publicly declaring war on the Federation in Western Australia. According to Sydney's Daily Telegraph, the NFF was claiming that some wharfies were earning $59 an hour while averaging a nine hour week.' The WWF expressed its concern about the adverse publicity to Minister for Transport Ralph Willis, believing some of it to be orchestrated, and complained that the Federation was again being blamed for disputes in the industry for which it was not responsible. Bull asked Willis to ensure that the inquiry would not become an inquisition, as his predecessor Peter Morris had promised, threatening that the 52 stevedoring unions might withdraw their co-operarion. The Federation did have the public support of Prime Minister Bob Hawke who, after a

meeting between Cabinet's Structural Adjustment Committee and principal parties in the waterfront industry, said real progress had been achieved in the industry despite continuing problems in port administration and co-ordination with land transport. Hawke cited the successful second tier wage negotiations, which resulted in significant improvements in work and management practices, reductions in manning levels and other efficiency measures, improvements in productivity, joint venture initiatives, and improvements in truck queuing and related problems. The Prime Minister added: On the industrial relations front while problems still remain, it was recognised by all parties that significant progress has occurred in recent years and, further, that all parties are committed to further improvements within the framework of the Waterfront Strategy and bilateral arrangements like the Stevedoring Industry Review Committee."

Wharfies

270

v4

h4

5, ~ l'~ -° . ·•

a» ;'

..

3 4QAcs

e "

•

WHARIES

"uc. s e

Waterside workers

demonstrate against the Interstate Commission report

o( /988.

271

''g' •

•·%.

''~ .1

'6 >

1977-1993

.el The Interstate Commission report Despite such highly placed support for the WWE when the ISC released its report to the government it was a bombshell aimed directly at the Federation. The union considered that the report was not intended at genuinely resolving industry problems, but at satisfying the economic rationalists. It represented "a critical challenge to the future of the Federation. It is aimed at undermining the strength of the maritime

unions." Although the report contained some positive recommendations regarding early retirement and redundancy, improved training, reclassification, safety legislation and security of employment for the existing workforce, it also made recommendations which in the WWF's opinion would do nothing more than crush the union. The redundancy scheme would pay out 3000 older workers over three years and then recruit 1000 new workers under the age of 30 (a net loss of 2000 members to the Federation). Enterprise based employment and negotiations would be introduced and the WWF would lose coverage of small ports, such bulk handling as it had (including grain and coal), and inland container depots. The report also suggested that outside contractors replace WWF tradesmen members for maintenance work; work practices be changed through job design (probably resulting in fewer workers being required); industry awards "renegotiated"; supplementary labour used to meet peak demands; container depot

productivity schemes revised; permanent stand down provisions introduced which could be put into effect within 24 hours; and importer and exporter organisations and the Trade Practices Commission encouraged to intervene in Industrial Relations Commission hearings. The NFF, a leading proponent of the new right ideology, was one group applauding the !SC report. Its Industrial Officer Paul Hoolihan was quoted as saying of his organisation's anti-Federation campaign: We're deliberately outlandish. We do this to win publicity. The Government and the Arbitration Commission have changed their seance because of the noise we are making. We are being deliberately confrontational ist and it's working. Claiming the report as a victory for the NFE Hoolihan said he understood that waterside workers would be the losers but they would "just have to take it".® Bull's reply to the NFF was that: [if it thought] we are going to cake significant reductions in standards and after we have bled a little the parties might get together and talk •··· Well let me tell you this battle is far from over. We aren't just going to roll over and belly up. There was a much-publicised scandal over· a proposed sale of the Sydney Branch's historic No.60 Sussex Street building, around which the "Hungry Mile" legend centred, in 1988. In spite of membership instructions to seek competing offers, a majority of the Sydney Branch Communist Party-aligned leadership decided to sell the building to Ronher Pty Ltd. It later transpired that Ron her was a $2 shelf company operated by a recently discharged bankrupt The decision to sell breached Federation rules, since property disposal had to be authonsed federally. The sale price of $5.9 million was reputedly half the building's estimated value and in order· to remove a caveat placed on it by Ronher; the case went to the Supreme Courts Equity Division. General Secretary Bull was cross-examined for two days over union minute books and other confidential material. The federal officials eventually met with the purchasing principals and reached a settlement which excluded Ronher The issue caused considerable disunity in Sydney Branch. At a confrontational meeting, only ~ handful of members supported the branch leadership, and at subsequent elections all officials involved in the proposed sale lost office. They were replaced by a leadership headed by Branch Secretary Jim Donovan of the Socialist Party of

Australia...

(Source: Anne Jamieson, 'Trouble on the waterfront", Weekend Australian, 16-17 Apnl 1988: MantJme Worker, March 1988, p.2; and Federation files.)

272

Wharfies

A condition of the !SC report was that it was indivisible: no single recommendation could be accepted without accepting them all. Federation Officers who had read an advance copy agreed it should be rejected whatever the outcome and communicated their position to ACTU Secretary Bill Kelty. He declared support for the Federation and the two organisations issued a joint rejection. The WWF received letters and resolutions of support from all major Trades and Labour Councils, the ACTU, and the Labor Party, "condemning any attempt to weaken or carve up the union". Abroad, the ITWF and the Pacific Basin dockers' unions, comprising the Japanese, US and New Zealand waterfront unions also passed a resolution of solidarity."

The Federation called national stop-work meetings, explained the content of the report, and recommended endorsement of its rejection. Rejection was particularly disappointing for older WWF members who had remained in the industry, hoping for an improved redundancy (since the package did include increased and relatively generous payments). Nevertheless, over forty meetings in ports around the country unanimously endorsed rejection of the !SC report. Many of the older members were unwilling to trade conditions for which they had fought all their working lives, in return for personal benefit. Bull recalls the level of conviction and solidarity of the meetings was "humbling".®

A special issue of the Maritime Worker was produced with the cover of the !SC report reproduced on the front page, bearing a large "X" across it. When employers and stevedoring unions met separately with Transport Minister Willis, it was Willis' birthday. Along with the

Federation's reactions to the report, WWF officials gave him a cake and a copy of the Maritime Worker. Further talks were held between the parties, and with ACTU backing, the WWF and other unions worked to eliminate recommendations which would be detrimental to unions, or impractical for the industry. The unions agreed to negotiate a new package using the acceptable elements of the !SC report, and a position paper outlining broad areas of agreement and difference was formulated by the employers and the unions. On this basis Transport Minister Willis announced a $300 million plan to rejuvenate the waterfront.59 Such progress was short lived: in June the AEWL announced its insistence on new conditions if negotiations were to proceed. These conditions included the introduction of compulsory retrenchment; casual supplementary labour; permanent stand down orders; a move to exclude the WWF from container depots; and the contracting of maintenance and ancillary work. The Federation responded with

1977-1993

273

stoppages in seven major ports and the AEWL relented.® Commenting on the dispute, the Australian of the 21st of June 1989 said:

While much of the waterfront delay can be sheeted home to the almost legendary bloody-mindedness of the WWE, there are also disruptive vested interests on the other side. The demands made by the employers go well beyond the government's guidelines and have been greeted with understandable anger by the WWF ... The Association of Employers of Waterside Labour claims that its members must have the right to run their own industry but their dismal record of industrial relations over the past 10 years casts doubt on their ability to do so. The government's waterfront reform package was half-hearted, but it is discouraging co get even a flawed attempt to tidy up the waterfront scuttled without it being given a chance.'

The Waterfront Industry Reform Authority The Waterfront Industry Reform Authority (WIRA) was set up by the Federal Labor Government in July 1989 with Peter Evans, a senior manager of Ampol and Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management, at its head. WIRA was the mechanism by which the Labor Government compelled waterfront change. In the 1988-89 budget $53 million was allocated to WIRA, provided an in-principle agreement for

a reform program over the next three years could be agreed between the industry parties. Senior ACTU Industrial Officer, Ian Court, led the negotiations for the waterfront unions, and the WWF was represented by General Secretary Bull, Assistant General Secretary John Coombs and Federal Research Officer Greg Comber. Federal Councillor Jim Donovan (Sydney Branch), John Hill (Sydney Clerks) and Claude Cumberlidge

(Melbourne Branch) were also part of the team. General Secretary Bull later said that "the depth and duration of the recession, coinciding as it did with the Waterfront Reform Process, [was]

nothing short of a calamity!"WWF membership was reduced by at least an additional thousand and its capacity to fight back on issues such as double headers and the use of supplementary casual labour, was significantly reduced. That the WWF would have to change under such pressure was certain, and the Federation developed a "bend, but not break" survival philosophy to cope with the difficulties of the period. Negotiation of the in-principle agreement was a harrowing experience for WWF officials, but it was endorsed by about 81 per cent of those members who voted on the issue." The agreement was then quickly implemented in Sydney so that it became reality before the

impending federal election. The Coalition Opposition threatened it

274

Wharfies

would not implement the agreement if it won government. The Hawke Government was re-elected however, and WWF officials, many of whom genuinely feared for the future of their union, returned to the task of negotiated reform. Arguing that only one thing was certain that there would be change in the waterfront industry as there had been in the shipping, steel. metal, and building industries= Bull favoured adoption of the agreement as the only way that the WWF would have a significant influence over the inevitable. "The last several years have been very difficult" he said "and I don't mind admitting that I have felt the strain personally". He thanked all those involved in the negotiations: WWF officials, other unions and Ian Court of the ACTU. Bull commented, "These negotiations were by far the most intensive I have ever experienced and the stakes were obviously higher than any contract negotiations". Likening the \WWF's circumstances once again to those transpiring from the Tait Inquiry of 1956 he commented on the fate of other unions involved in the international restructuring of the stevedoring industry: ... Just to lift our

spirits while these negotiations were under way, we learnt of the final collapse of the British seamen's strike at Dover, saw the defeat of the British dockers and are witnessing the New Zealand wharfies and seamen's unions balancing on a knife edge. The agreement committed the parties to a three year timetable for implementation of reform under the WIRA and to "fundamental structural and attitudinal change in the waterfront industry". It provided for employment security for existing employees, the rejuvenation of the industry and "retirement with dignity" for older and long serving members through the adoption of the Interstate Commission's recommendations for an early retirement/redundancy package. A reduction of the workforce by 2000 (3000 redundancies and 1000 recruits) was accepted. The WWF also accepted the concept of enterprise employment, and enterprise bargaining, which would be negotiated through agreements reached between the employers and the unions. Neither party could reject one part of the agreement and expect to hold other parties to the rest. The Maritime Worker related that the agreement aimed to ensure "a reliable, efficient and competitive industry" through more effective management responsibility; a more flexible and skilled workforce; rejuvenation of the age structure of the industry; and a more satisfying career structure for all employees. le also aimed to achieve "real productivity improvements" while "modernising the industry and producing real and lasting reform"

275

1977-1993

Arrangements for larger ports were to be determined by discussion in individual ports but the intermediate and small ports, which were becoming less cost-effective, were vulnerable. One of the major costs of maintaining these ports was guaranteed wage arrangements (under the national contract the wage was guaranteed even if the hours worked fell short). These became impossible to justify in the current economic climate. Federal Officers had: constantly stressed the need for men to be present on any job to which they are rostered, but all too often this is ignored -- now the price is being paid.

Now the Federation has to co-operate in the process of making these pores viable and, in some cases, this will result in a reduction of our numbers and integration with port authority labour, or utilisation of our membership as back-up for port authority labour.67 Members of the first

The union's priority was to negotiate arrangements which would ensure · · sma 11 ports and permanent employment of XWWF members b in surviving thus the continued existence of the Federation in those locations. The Federation could no longer guarantee members in small ports that they would work exclusively on stevedoring operations: they would have to make themselves available either for the full 35 hours per week, or th e

\.l·., ..

l

group of watersider5s

to leave the industry under the provisions of the in-principle agreement in l 990.

Thousands more followed.

.

x

,"es ~ f •. ±=s

'

l

276

Wharfies

7

Greg Combet. WWF

Research and Industrial Officer,

/988-1993.

hours requested of them, on either stevedoring or port authority work. Port authority work could include wharf construction, maintenance and other tasks.

The reform period was one of extraordinary activity, complexity, and, overwhelmingly, strain on the Federation's human resources. The union was compelled to respond simultaneously to a huge range of problems of such depth and significance that the old days of simply having a dispute with the boss, win or lose, were like ancient history. Issues over the next three years were many and varied. Transitional labour lists were created to assist with the shift to enterprise employment and the implementation of enterprise productivity and restructuring agreements. Enterprise agreements with each separate company enterprise and, in some states, port authorities as well, were negotiated. Depot coverage was gained and an award created, along with the consolidation of separate awards into one single award for the stevedoring industry. New industrial classifications were formulated as types of work altered and skill training was introduced. Non-stevedoring members not covered by the terms of the in-principle agreement had to be protected. There was restructuring of bulk cargo handling, and new and reduced grain handling manning levels. Restructuring of the Federation included changes to stare branches and the introduction of central funding. The Australian Foremen Stevedores Association (AFSA) members were absorbed into Federation ranks, with some associated problems. There was also planning for amalgamation with the Seamen's Union, and recognition of the need to protect the Federation's position in such negotiations. lmplemenring ACTIJ policy on industry unionism meant convincing other unions with a presence on the waterfront, like the carpenter members of the Building Workers' Industrial Union, to transfer to the WWF. The Federation was also involved in a case before the IRC dealing with Section 118A of the Industrial Relations Act, with which it would gain coverage of all appropriate grades of port and marine authority employees. At the same rime rhe Federation was trying to keep at bay the government, the opposition, the NFF, the Port Authority Association, the Shippers' Council, the Chamber of Shipping, and individual importers and exporters with problems, real or imagined. Additionally

\

277

1977-1993

there was the negotiation of a wage increase, and finalisation of the superannuation agreement in time for retiring members to get the benefit of improvements, plus the members' personal decisions on whether or not to accept a redundancy offer. For union officials it

required communicating the complexity of the reform process, and the information necessary to make decisions, to the membership. Jim Beggs,

Melbourne Branch and Federal President during the reform period, recalled there were at least three hundred meetings with the general membership to sort out the reform process: ... at the end of the day they [the leadership] had to come back to the rank and file ... and every day of the week in that last three years ... Our officials were out on the job having meetings, smokos, lunch breaks with the men, explaining to them where we were at with the reform process. Yes, the numbers are going to have to come down; yes, we have been able to achieve

what we think is a fairly good redundancy payment; yes, there will be a new process of training and you are all going to be multi-skilled; yes, the foremen are going to be part of the Federation; yes, all these other small groups of workers on the waterfront are gomg to be part of our union-, yes, there will b

.

be an amalgamation with the seamen.®

The achievements of the reform period had exceeded all expectations by mid 1992. Enterprise employment had been established in all major and most regional ports, covering 90 per cent of the workforce. Over sixty individual enterprise agreements had been finalised by the 3 _1st of October that year. Negotiations for most of these were led by Assistant General Secretary John Coombs while Federal Organiser John Pidcoc led those for grain, coal and some other industries. A reduction in the workforce of 30 per cent had been anticipated, the net loss of 2000 after retirement and recruitment. However by mid 1992 the reduction in the

workforce had reached 57 per cent, because less than three hundred younger workers had been recruited and additional members had been voluntarily retrenched. These additional retrenchments were almost entirely a consequence of the recession and trade slump. Coombs and Federal Research Officer Greg Comber led negotiations to consolidate 21 separate awards into a single industry award, containing new classification structures based on skill acquisition and removal of work demarcations. Labour pooling had been replaced by the introduction of supplementary labour to meet short term peaks in demand. Productivity results were better than expected and were reflected in performance indicators established by the WIRA. Reports from individual stevedoring terminal operators also reflected

278

Wharfies

good results, suggesting that the Federation was very close to achieving performance levels equal with any in the world. In the three year reform

period, productivity had increased by between 40 and 100 per cent. Australian grain pores were made among the most efficient in the world: the turnaround time of grain ships was reduced by 50 per cent, manning

cur by 70 per cent, and stevedoring charges halved. Overall stevedoring charges had fallen by 38 per cent. Time lost through industrial disputes fell dramatically, with no time at all lost between July 1991 and April 1992.5

The WWF transformed The Federation also underwent enormous internal change during the reform period. Before the period had begun, total membership of the Federation had already dropped to 7474 (which included the then newly recruited tradesmen and clerks). At that time only 11 of the union's 44 branches had a full time official, only 12 of the branches had more than 100 members, and more than 75 per cent of the membership was concentrated in Sydney, Melbourne, Fremantle, Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla. A reduction in revenue was a by-product of membership decline, but in the late 1980s the Federation retained its expensive internal structure, more appropriate to the halcyon days of the I 950s when it had 27 000 members. The 1988 All Ports Conference embarked on an internal restructuring program aimed at cost curring ( which became imperative once the reform period was under way and large reductions in membership were anticipated), which would also assist a possible amalgamation with the Seamen's Union of Australia. Elections of officials would occur every four years, as would the shortened All Ports Conference (its title changed to National Conference). State (as opposed ro port) branches and committees were established to oversee state matters while port committees took care of port matters. Branch representation at the National Conference was changed and reduced, as was representation on the Federal Council. Central funding, involving the transfer of all branch property, assets, funds and expenditure to federal control, was introduced. Amalgamation of branches occurred in ports where there were two branches: Sydney, Melbourne, Newcastle and Fremantle. The federal officer structure was altered and in early 1988 a Federal Research Officer, Greg Comber, was appointed. Comber took over many of the tasks Norm Docker had performed - a late recognition that the WWF, like most other unions, could no longer rely on drawing its officials entirely from the membership. The current

1977-1993

279

round of inquiries like the SIRC required officers with tertiary education and advanced research and advocacy skills.' The Federation's industrial activities from the mid l 980s to the early 1990s were large! y directed by its relationship with the ACTU and the wider trade union movement. Having accepted the Accord, there was much less struggle over wages than in previous years, and much less industrial disputation generally. Conflict with employers occurred over issues such as roster arrangements and retirement/redundancy and superannuation, and there were also battles with other unions and employers, over rights of coverage: an issue increasingly vital to the WWF's survival. There were ongoing problems with the SPU (renamed the National Union of Workers or NUW) over coverage in container depots, with members of the storemen and packers at times wanting to join the WWE The NUW sought deregistration of the WWF in 1989, but almost immediately also sought amalgamation with the WWF as a

solution to both unions' problems.? The Federation maintained coverage of grain handlers at Fremantle but there were continuing

skirmishes with CBH in Western Australia over the award, complicated by the desire of grain handlers in other Western Australian ports to leave the AWU and join the WWE . The WWF's long and close relationship with the ACTU intensified

through the 1980s, both because of the Accord and the attacks the union faced. The WWF regarded ACTU support and involvement in its battles as a necessity. ACTU Senior Industrial Officer Ian Court assisted the WWF throughout the reform period and the union relied on ACTU backing for its survival.' ACTU support did not come without a price,

and that was co-operation with the reform of the industry which the Labor Government desired. One example of the close relationship between the two organisations was the WWF's support for the ACTU's protest at the April 1991 national wage case decision. The IRC declined to accept the Accord agreement in the form in which it was presented. In particular it rejected the position put by the ACTU and the government that the national wage principles needed to be modified in order to accommodate enterprise bargaining, including wage increases negotiated at the enterprise level. Additionally. the Commission rejected the concept of a flat $1.00 wage increase, instead awarding a 2.5 per cent increase. The importance of the decision to the union movement was that the Commission effectively rejected enterprise level wage increases. The problem for the WWF lay in the union's need to secure wage increases, in return for its members' co-operation in restructuring. However, the

280

Wharfies

In the late 1980s the WWF embarked on a series of joint ventures with stevedoring companies and port authorities. The first was in Mackay, followed by Stanley, Geelong, Darwin and Geraldton. The purpose of the ventures was both political and economic: they demonstrated that co-operation between local organisations and the Federation resulted in cheaper costs to consumers than those charged by foreign based stevedoring companies like Conaust, a subsidiary of British owned P&O. Reduced stevedoring costs made small ports more viable, maintained manning levels for the Federation, and assisted the economic health of local communities. An example was the creation of Federated Stevedores Geelong, a joint venture between the Waterside Workers' Federation and the Geelong Port Authority. After only five years in operation the Geelong container· terminal had closed in 1988, threatening the port's viability. Co-manager of the Geelong venture, and Chairman of the Geelong Port Authority, Neil Samuals observed "a landlord stevedoring company is unwilling to invest in a port They have no long term commitment to the industry in the port We have more to lose so we are much closer to the workforce." The Federation invested no money in the ventures, but worked in close co-operation with its venture partners to ensure maximum efficiency and minimum disruption on the job. Although the Australian Employers of Waterside Labour opposed the joint ventures, they reportedly cut handling costs by between 30 and 40 per cent and won a good deal of support from users. The initiatives ceased when Federation members in the ports involved switched to company employment, and each company had to employ its own people full time. (Source: Maritime Worker, May

1988, pp.14-19; and May 1989, p.11.)

wage fixing principles at the time did not allow for increases which stood outside the centralised agreements. The WWF had been hopeful of securing, with the ACTU's support, increases in the order of 15 per cent in return for the members' commitment to restructuring. The national wage case decision now made this impossible and effectively deadlocked the waterfront reform process. The WWF supported the ACTU in rejecting the national wage case decision and launched a campaign for restructuring and productivity based increases. This led to an agreement brokered by Prime Minister Hawke at a conference called at short notice for the 1st of May in Sydney. The three stevedoring unions the WWF represented by Tas Bull and John Coombs, the Australian Supervising Stevedores' Association (ASSA) represented by M Chapman, and the AFSA represented by D Smith and the employers met separately, in rotation, with Hawke, Labour Minister Peter Cook and Transport Minister Bob Collins. Negotiations carried on through the night until 6 am, such marathons being a favourite technique of Hawke, although other participants regarded them as "negotiation by exhaustion". As a

1977-1993

28 I

._56EZ AUL.. YOU SHCOULD'A 6£€g THERE TO SEE ME..IT WI#AS

JusT LIE OLD TIMES.

Cartoon comment on Prime Minister Bob Hawke's involvement in breaking the deadlock in waterfront reform in 1991.

result of the conference, the employers agreed to a flat $12.00 wage rise, in addition to an aggregate increase of 6.12 per cent through a new classification structure in the stevedoring industry award. The IRC subsequently converted the $12.00 increase into a 2.5 per cent wage nse for all waterside workers and adjusted the 6.12 per cent aggregate . :l if 5 increases to classiication rates, wwhich in many cases resulted in

individual increases of between 18 and 20 per cent. This was in addition to any other centralised increases under the Accord. Soon afterwards

the WWF filed an application to vary the award to provide for the new classification structure, along with rates of pay which accommodated the 6.12 per cent wage increases. The IRC decision enabled the payment of the increases sought by the WWF and opened the door for a subsequent review of wage fixing principles in late 1991. The review

established the principle of enterprise bargaining, thus allowing wage negotiations and increases at enterprise level. . The WWF's role in the ACTU campaign against the national wage case decision resulted in enterprise bargaining wage increases being made possible within the centralised system. The ACTU campaign had made use of the waterfront because of the WWF's industrial strength, and because of the merit of its claim. Flexibility at enterprise level was fundamental to the restructuring process and there was a legitimate need to facilitate wage increases in association with the development of enterprise agreements. The Commission could not have rejected the

282

Wharfies

significance of the restructuring, and therefore could not reject the merit of the wage increases. The new award established a precise mechanism: once an enterprise agreement was approved by the Commission, the wage increase established in r_he award would flow to the workers under that enterprise agreement. This provided an incentive to finalise enterprise agreements since this would start the flow of wage increases.

Amalgamation moves The ACTU released its plan, Future Strategies, for Australia's union movement in 1988. Under the plan over three hundred unions would be rationalised into 20 major organisations. The document was followed by

federal legislation, which required unions to have at least 10 000 members to retain registration. The initiative coincided neatly with the WWF's aims for industry unionism, and its need for numerical expansion, although compulsion added an undesirable urgency to the Federal Organiser jim Tannock with

Melbourne Branch officials and

delegates.

process. Ar itsi. 1985 All Ports Conference the WWF had • d a h-% a came

resolution calling for the establishment of a maritime federation, and notified other

relevant unions. Seagoing unions were like-minded and that stevedoring unions would amalgamate, seagoing

the intention was

1977-1993

283

unions would do the same, and both groups would then join to form a federation. But by 1988, union rationalisation and the 10 000 membership figure encouraged the WWF to consider other amalgamations in case the maritime federation did not eventuate. Various meetings with other unions were held in the late l 980s aimed at amalgamation. Initial discussion with the AFSA, led by Peter James, foundered on legal technicalities ( in particular the AFSA's desire to retain its own Federal Council which would have amounted to a union within a union), although foremen had once been members of the WWF, the last of them having left in the mid 1950s. Moves between the AFSA and the ASSA also foundered, and the ASSA eventually amalgamated with the Merchant Services Guild, forming the Australian Maritime Officers' Union. A renewed attempt at amalgamation between the WWF and the AFSA was successful. Peter James became an official in the WWF's Melbourne Branch and the AFSA's New South Wales Secretary, Don Smith, became a Federal Organiser. The Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union (FMWU) handed over a small section of its membership, the waterfront watchmen, to the WWE Other discussions went no further, with the exception of the Seamen's Union. The SUA's Committee of Management issued a unanimous resolution in 1989 that amalgamation with the WWF would proceeded. and the WWF Federal Council adopted the same decision.' The agreement anticipated an historic alignment of Australia's premier maritime unions, who shared a radical heritage and a militant past. The two unions issued a joint statement in 1991: The amalgamated union will be a national organisation representative of all members throughout Australia, it will be democratic in nature and structure and be subject to involvement of the membership an-cl their consideration of management committee decisions. The WWF and the SUA are neither narrow-based nor restrictive in their involvement in trade union or political questions affecting their membership, or the community. They accept in particular, a responsibility to the underprivileged and see that continuing and developing within the amalgamated union. The Seamen's Union and the WWF have always accepted their responsibilities and involvement in the national and international trade union movement, in the struggle for national independence and against apartheid, racial discrimination and for social justice and equality everywhere for which our unions are held in high respect internationally. The amalgamated union will maintain these traditions."

284

SUA and WWF

o{fidals on the occasion of the WWF endorsement

of the plan to amalgamate the two unions. L to R WWF Assistant General Secretary

john Coombs; Federal Secretary SUA Pat Geraghty; SUA Presiding Officer Jim Steele; WWF General

President Jim Beggs; WWF General Secretary Tas Bull,

and Assistant Federal Secretary SUA Tony Papaconstuntinos.

Wharfies

The amalgamation process was made difficult by the contradictions in the rules of the two unions, which led to some tensions in the negotiations. The SUA was a highly centralised body with almost total power resting in the hands of the officials in the periods between the monthly stop-work meetings. By comparison the WWF was decentralised: its structure was based on port branches controlled by locally elected committees directly linked to the national office. It had no state branches, but these were established following a trial period in Tasmania where Burnie Branch Secretary Ian Mcfarlane doubled as State Secretary. The new WWF state branches then facilitated the amalgamation with the SUA. The WWF was under extreme pressure during this period, either to finalise the amalgamation with the SUA or with another union (possibly the TWU, the NUW or the FMWU), to meet the Industrial Relations Act requirement of 10 000 membership or deregistration by March 1993. General Secretary Bull wrote "at every level we have been operating on a razor's edge".78 In April 1993 waterfront workers and seamen voted "Yes" in record numbers in favour of the amalgamation. An overwhelming 95 per cent of members from both unions had voted in favour of the proposed union. Just under 70 per cent of the 10 238 members eligible to vote in the two unions did so, and it was the highest participation recorded in a two-way amalgamation ballot since the ACTU launched its campaign Fr,,

h

ERSIDE WORKERS

{9,

FEDERATION

• hNOAL CORRICE '

• A

Cw 2

·

i

1977- 1993

285

Approaching the amalgamation with the Seamen's Union at the_ end of the reform period, an extraordinary number of senior Waterside Workers' Federation officials left the industry almost simultaneously. They were General Secretary Tas Bull; Federal President, Melbourne and Victorian President Jim Beggs; Federal Organiser John Pidcock; Federal Councillor, Melbourne and Victorian Secretary Arch Arceri; Federal Organiser Don Smith; Senior Vice-

President and Brisbane and Queensland Branch Secretary Arthur Moynihan; Federal Councillor and Tasmanian Secretary Ian McFarlane; Federal Councillor; Port Adelaide and South Australian Branch Secretary Ron Connolly; Federal Councillor; Sydney and New South Wales State President Ron Anderson; International Transport Workers' Federation Inspector Les Symes; Federal Councillor and Newcastle Secretary Bill Kent; Melbourne Clerks' Branch Vigilance Officer Ron Ferguson; Federal Councillor and Melbourne Clerks Branch President Tommy Gilday; Federal Councillor and Melbourne and Victonan Branch Secretary Claude Cumberlidge; Adelaide and South Australian Branch Secretary, and Junior Vice-President Alec McKechnie· Federal Councillor and Port Kembla Branch Secretary Bob Lawrie; Port Kembla Branch Secretary Bill Muscat; Melbourne Branch Vigilance Officer Joe

Buttigieg· Melbourne Branch Vigilance Officer Bob Patchett; and Melbourne Branch Senior

· ' · Foremen Stevedores' d ·'Asssociauon · ti General Secretary) Vice-President (and former Australian

Peter· James. (Source: Maritime Worker, October 1992, p.6 and Federation files.)

for larger unions in 1989. Two of the oldest and most industrially powerful organisations in Australia, the SUA and the WWE became the 10 000-strong Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) on the 1st of July 1993.1 covered workers in the stevedoring and seafaring industries, port authorities, offshore oil and gas operations, dredging, and professional diving. The ultimate aim of the amalgamation process is a maritime federation consisting of all stevedoring and seagoing unions plus port authority employees. To this end the Section 118A application before the IRC, to incorporate all appropriate grades of port authority employees into the MUA, had been pursued by the WWF since 1990. In September 1995 the IRC allowed the Constitution Rule of the MUA to be expanded to legally cover port authority employees. Under the coordination of WWF Senior National Industrial Officer. Greg Comber, three officials were seconded from other unions to facilitate the process. They were Chris Ryan from the Public Sector Union. New South Wales Branch; Graham Young, Assistant Smee Secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Western Australia Branch; and Tony Morison from the Municipal Officers' Association. Morison was initially attached to the ACTU/Waterfront Unions Research Unit which was funded by WIRA but in 1992 was appointed National

286

Wharfies

Industrial Officer for the WWF. Graham Young became the MUA's Training Officer. Morison rook over the co-ordination of the port authority Section 118A application when Greg Combet left the union in mid 1993. Because of its size the Section 118A case was one of the most comprehensive and significant supported by the ACTU during the union rationalisation process. It was launched by the WWF in 1990 and was. in a single application, an effort to gain coverage of an entire industry of employees numerically comparable with the WWF's total existing membership. The port authorities were covered by at least 26 federally registered unions, and many others within each state jurisdiction. Thus almost every major union of the time was affected by the application. The case was amongst the most complicated ever to be pursued and took five years to reach a conclusion. Another distinguishing feature was the agreement reached between the WWF and ocher maritime unions, with almost every one of the unions which had award and coverage rights within the port authorities. These agreements generally provided for the transfer of membership of the members of other organisations to the maritime unions, and the transfer of award and coverage rights. The Section 118A case was also significant because it was a rare occasion in which a union won coverage notwithstanding the opposition of a large number of employer and other organisations. The success of the application was a major vindication of the ACTU and union movement's union rationalisation policy. By the end of the case, the restructuring of the port authorities had reduced workforce numbers and between 3000 and 3500 employees were brought within the maritime unions' coverage. At the 28th National Conference of the WWF in 1991 (the last

before amalgamation) ACTU Secretary Bill Kelty talked of the Federation and its place in Australian society: The WWF is a very special union for the union movement as a whole ... and a very special union for me personally because it is a union that symbolises union militancy in a practical way. It symbolises the results for the workers, achievements, but it has never at any stage of its existence ever lost sight of a genuine concern for the people.81 Giving credit to Tas Bull's leadership during the reform period, Kelty outlined the profound change the WWF had undergone although it was still given no credit for its efforts. The WWF had had to amalgamate with two unions and absorb many other groups, had to restructure its own organisations to make them more adaptive and representative and

1977-1993

287

had to be involved in and accept a new wages structure with a change to broader, skilled jobs. Where formerly the union had dealt with the entire industry it now had to have up to one hundred enterprise agreements. These agreements gave rise to a restructuring of the waterfront, which meant that 3000 jobs had to disappear in the process, yet not only had the WWF had to adjust and be committed to all of that, but the general expectation was that it should be achieved within two years. The community, Kelty said, did not recognise that waterfront workers had not only been involved in restructuring the industry and the union, but that they had given their commitment and kept it.>

Exit Tas Bull On a personal level the reform period saw the exit of many full time W/F officials, at a rate probably unequalled by any other Australian union. Many had delayed their departure from the industry, at the union's request and wirh WIRA's agreement, until the reform process

Delegates to the WWE 28th and last National Conference before its

amalgamation with the 5UA

288

General Secretary Tas Bull addressing ACTU Congress

199/.

VWharfies

was complete. Among them was General Secretary Tas Bull who commented to other retiring officers "Just looking around the table I can see how much experience, sacrifice and dedication is represented by those of you leaving" Bull had been a member of both the unions which amalgamated to form the MUA. He was raised in Tasmania and went to sea at the age of 14, on British and Scandinavian ships. The poverty he witnessed on his travels, combined with the depression stories he heard as a child, laid the foundation for his later union activism and Communist Party membership. Returning to Australia in 1950 he joined the SUA and was involved with the WWF in strike activity in Port "" Pirie in 1954 and Hobart in 1956. He joined the WWF almost immediately after the 1956 strike concluded and became involved in the Hursey Case in Tasmania when he acted as liaison officer between lawyers, witnesses and the union. He was an activist on the picket lines and in the Rank and File Campaign Committee which led the local union activity (along with fellow wharfie Leo Brown, who later became FMWU State Secretary and Tasmanian State President of the ALP). Bull later wrote a book on the case. He transferred to Melbourne where he was briefly President of the Job Delegates' Association and then to Sydney where he served on the Job Delegates' Executive and was later elected Vigilance Officer. He was elected Federal Organiser in 1971, became Assistant General Secretary when Charlie Fitzgibbon retired, and replaced Norm Docker as General Secretary in 1984. He was elected a Vice-President of the ACTU in 1987 and Senior Vice-President in 1991. He was also a member of the ITF Board representing the Asia/Pacific region for ten years. He retired

1977-1993

289

Assisting the strength of the Waterside Workers' Federation has been the stability of tenure of many of its national and major branch officials. First General Secretary was Joe Moms (1902 to 1928). He was followed by Arthur Turley (1928 to 1937), Jim Healy (1937 to 1961), Charlie Fitzgibbon (1961 to 1983), Norm Docker (1983 to 1984), Tas Bull (1984 to 1992) and John Coombs (1993). Other long serving federal officials include: Ted Roach, Assistant General Secretary (1941 to 1967); Norm Docker, Industrial Officer/Assistant General Secretary ( 1951 to 1983); Maurie Wallington, Federal Organiser (1955 to 1973),

and Leo Lenane, Federal Organiser/Assistant General Secretary (1973 to 1988). ,

.

Some major branches enjoyed similar stability: Ted Bull, Charlie Young lick O'Neil and Geoff Swayn all held office in Melbourne for more than twenty years, as did Tom Nelson, Dutchy Young, lvo Barrett, Stan Moran and Matt Munro in Sydney. Smaller branches enjoying

continuity of leadership over long periods including the South Australian port of Wallaroo,

where Branch Secretary Wally Paul was followed by his son Mick. keeping the posrtJon in the family for more than thirty years. . , The tenures of General Presidents were somewhat less lengthy, although the Federations founding father Billy Hughes held the post from 1902 until 1916. Following him were: Jock Woods (NSW) 1917 to 1920;Arthur Turley (SA) 1921 to 1927;W Mather (WA) 1927 to

1933; W Ferrer (New South Wales) 1934; A Ogden (Qld) 1935 to 1937; R Whitlieli (SA) 1937 to 1938; A Finlay (New South Wales) 1938 to 1939; Jack Lonergan (Tas) 1939 to 1950; Jack Beitz (SA) 1950 to 1968; Arch Fulton (Tas) 1968 to 1976; H McDowell (SA) 197 6 to 1977; R Mortimer (Vic) 1977 to 1979;J Smith (WA) 1979 to 1982; Tom Supple (New South Wales) 1982 to 1987; Jim Beggs (Vic) 1987 to 1992; Jim Donovan (New South Wales) I 992 to amalgamation. (Source: Federation records.)

having been a member of both the WWF and the SUA which he regarded as two of the best unions in the world. He later added chat as an official he was very grateful for the support he had received from individual members and that he never had reason to be disappointed in them: The reform period was a very difficult time and my main objective was

to

get the union though the process intact. In some pans of the world dockers' unions fought the good fight but were destroyed. 1 had read a lot about what had happened here in the 1928 strike and in New Zealand in the lockout of 195 I and was aware of the developments there in the lnre 1980s. I was

from that position in 1993.

determined to avoid that outcome even if we had to lose some conditions to maintain the organisation. We were successful, thanks to the solidarity of the members and the unity of the officers and councillorn. I was also pleased to be part of the process which brought the WWF and the SUA together.

Bull presided over a period of extreme difficulty in the Federation's history and at his retirement commented on the personal pride he felt at

The benefit of the amalgamation will become clearer by the day as the MUA faces the challenges of the future.

290

Wharfies

When Bull retired, John Coombs became the last General Secretary of the Waterside Workers' Federation on the !st of January 1993, six

months prior to the amalgamation with the SUA. Western Australian State Secretary Vic Slater was appointed Assistant General Secretary and Mick O'Leary, Geelong Port Secretary, was appointed Federal Organiser, joining Jim Tannock who had been elected Federal Organiser ( Clerks) in 1991.

The Maritime Union of Australia In terms of membership, size and outlook, the MUA in the 1990s, led by Joint National Secretaries John Coombs (WWF) and Tony Papaconsruntinos (SUA), is a very different union from the Waterside Workers' Federation which was formed in 1902. The MUA has nevertheless inherited many of the core characteristics which made the WWF a singular union. The WWF existed for the best part of a century at the forefront of the great traditions of Australian unionism, and endured the movement's heaviest blows with a stoicism, courage and resilience which held the union together and gave leadership to countless others. At the WWF's heart was the great strength and loyalty of its rank and file, which not only delivered consistently effective leadership, but remained constant to the union and its leaders during very many rimes of adversity, always propelling it forward. The essence of the WWF's strength was the unique position it held in Australia's island economy because so much on which the country depended had to cross the wharves, a power effectively combined with the quality and discipline of its members. Although the MUA is much smaller than the WWF at its peak, the amalgamation of the WWF with the SUA and the AFSA, and the later absorption of members of other unions, has enhanced this highly effective weapon. Its use is somewhat more judicious than in earlier times but the MU A's willingness to use its industrial strength still attracts derision from conservative circles, matched by political and industrial efforts to weaken the union's power. A period of peace and consolidation was expected at the conclusion of the waterfront and shipping reform period, which roughly coincided with the establishment of the MUA in 1993. But attacks on the MUA, and the conditions it stood for, resumed in little more than a year. Security of employment was challenged in 1994 when Australian Stevedores bypassed established practice and sacked 55 employees, including 25 union delegates. An industrial showdown followed and 14 ports were closed around Australia. The dispute was referred to the IRC where the employers were ordered to reinstate the sacked workers. Forty-three employees (most of them not from the sacked members)

1977-1993

29 1

subsequently accepted voluntary retrenchment, as had been past practice when labour became redundant. Another attack occurred in 1994 when Freport, maintenance contractors for Australian Stevedores in Fremantle, wanted to establish a non-union agreement to undercut the stevedoring industry award. When Freport employees discovered the new agreement reduced wages by about $80.00 a week, they insisted on MUA involvement in negotiating all future agreements. In 1994 the Federal Labor Government moved to sell Australia's national shipping line, ANL, and sacked its chairman Captain Bill Bolitho and the ANL board. Federal Transport Minister Laurie Brereton declared the line was in such poor shape it could not be given away. The Government also sold its 25 per cent share in Australian Stevedores, ANL's stevedoring arm, to Jamieson Equities which achieved total control of the stevedoring company for $56 million, thought by the MUA to be a bargain basement price. The government's actions sparked, in September 1994, the first major national stoppage of both the entire shipping and waterfront industries in living memory. The four day stoppage, along with ACTU intervention with the government, secured important gains for Australian shipping. The Federal Government gave a public commitment to retain ANL and cabotage, under which Australia's coastal shipping industry is limited to ships and crews of Australian origin, and agreed to a range of subsidies for Australian shipping. The ANL issue resurfaced in 1995 when the Federal Government planned to sell the line to the British owned P&O. The ACTU and the MUA opposed the move unless appropriate safeguards to employ Australian seamen were guaranteed. Agreement did not eventuate, the sale to P&O was abandoned, and the Federal Government decided to restructure the line under the leadership of an interim chairman and a new board. In 1995, in Fremantle again, entrepreneur Len Buckeridge attempted to set up a non-union stevedoring operation with the public encouragement of the Western Australian Government. A MUA stoppage followed and during the dispute the government disposed of

the Western Australia State Shipping Service, which had served the state's coastline for more than eighty years. Major employer bodies criticised the State Government's handling of the dispute, the Buckeridge attempt to launch non-union stevedoring was abandoned

and normal port operations resumed. Late in 1995 the MUA exhibited the WWF and SUA historical characteristic of solidarity with other sections of the labour movement

292

Wharfies

1977-1993

293

when its members stopped work nationally at the ACTU's request to support workers at Weipa in the Northern Territory who were resisting pressure from Conzinc Riotinto Australia to accept individual contracts. A Federal election was held in March 1966. During the campaign the then Oppositon, which became the Howard Government, announced that as part of its transport policy it intended to remove cabotage, a policy common to most other seafaring nations, which would open Australian coastal trade to foreign flag shipping, including Flag of Convenienve vessels. The Opposition also indicated it would sell ANL, and that it would encourage non-union stevedoring operations. They also stated it would specifically target the MUA for destruction. Ar the rime of writing the Howard Government is still young and many of its policies have yet to be realised. It seems likely, however, that The Waterside Workers' Federation has a long history of support for Australia's various

forms of national shipping lines, because they represent the only method of effective competition for freights charged by the overseas companies. The Commonwealth Line was established by Prime Minister (and Federation President) Billy Hughes in 1916, during World War I. Fifteen ships were purchased and renamed "Australs" and later another 2l enemy vessels were added to the fleet. As the traditional carriers of Australian cargoes (mainly the British shipping lines) were engaged in the war in Europe, the Australs carried meat, wool and a bumper crop of wheat overseas. The Commonwealth Line fleet numbered almost 70 ships by the end of World War I, but was disbanded by the conservative Prime Minister Stanley Bruce in the late I 920s. What was later known as the Australian National Line began in World War II under the Shipping Control Board, which had the power to direct and requisition ships in the interest of public security and the prosecution of war Fifty-nine ships had been requisitioned by I 941 and were the basis for Australia's second national line. By the early 1950s the Control Board (its name changed to the Australian Shipping Board) owned 3l ships. The sale of the National Line has been raised frequently since the Menzies Government first suggested it in the early 1950s. The Federation, the Seamen's Union of Australia and other seafaring unions, have fought to retain the line. The most recent battle was in 1995 when Transport Minister Laurie Brereton sacked the Board, led by Captain Bill Bolitho, declaring the line would be sold (at the same time saying it would be difficult to give it away!) The Maritime Union of Australia opposed the sale and a national stoppage, supported by the ACTU, resulted in attempts to find a buyer who would continue to employ Australian seafarers on Australian conditions for a fixed minimum period. The government then agreed to retain and restructure the line. The Howard Coalition Government, elected in 1996, declared its commitment to sell the line. (Source: Roy McDonnell, Build a Fleet Lose a Fleet, I lawthorne Press, 19/6, and personal communication with Captain Bill Bolitho and Tas Bull.)

d Federal Coundllor), second and third fror Above: Mrs and Mr Tom Nelson (former Sydney Branch Secretary and ,rg of the Tom Nelson Hall in the left, and Gough Whitlam, former Prime Minister, second from right, at the opening new Sydney Branch premises in / 992. M .u · ofAustralia, John Below: Then Assistant Genera/ Secretary. now Joint National Secretary of the anume n,on L < Don Sr·ith Inspector .es Coombs (R) farewells L to R retiring Federal Orgarnsers m, aind John Pidcock, and [TF BottDs..

Symes. In the background are WWF joumalist Zoe Reyolds (J and fTF Secreto '_,

g ( = »

294

Wharfies

Flags of Convenience The Waterside Workers' Federation became involved in the "flags of convenience campaign when it affiliated with the International Tran sport Workers' Federation (ITF) in 1972. The campaign involved the ITF pursuing the owners of sub-standard ships, who registered their vessels in countries where no or very low standards applied, and thus avoided having to maintain safety, social and industrial standards. Registration in these countries offered the additional benefit of avoidance of tax obligations in the country of ongin.

In the early 1970s Federation General Secretary Charlie Fitzgibbon reached agreement with large ship charterers, such as the Wheat Board and BHP, that they would only use ships which had safety, crew, wage and conditions standards acceptable to the ITF. The Federation appointed inspectors for the ITF, the first of whom was Tas Bull (on a part time basis), and later Les Symes, ex-seaman and former Sydney Branch Committee of Management member. With the co-operation of other maritime unions the Federation provided formal surveillance of ships flying flags of convenience, as well as assistance to seafarers. After disasters involving flag of convenience ships around the world, the application of world safety standards was taken over by government agencies. Several sinkings off the Australian coast cost many seamen's lives and endangered fishing, the marine environment and tourism, and resulted in an Australian government inquiry in 1992. It was headed by Peter Morris, and branded flags of convenience vessels "Ships of Shame". The inquiry found evidence of unseaworthiness, poorly trained crews, false papers, inaccurate certificates, careless commercial practice, sexual abuse of young seamen, starvation of crews, refusal to pay seamen, denial of medical attention and failure to provide basic amenities, amongst many other crimes. The ITF's fiags of convenience campaign originally sought to drive offending vessels back to their country of ownership, but in the 1990s the focus of the campaign shifted to applying standards aboard these ships and improving the conditions for their crews. Actions to support seafarers include boycotts, sympathy actions in support of crew strikes and any other action which assisted crew members and exerted pressure on shipowners to conclude an agreement acceptable to the ITF. Inspectors from the ITF could also provide legal assistance to crews, for instance by the arrest of a vessel, and with calculating monies owed and lodging claims for crew members who have suffered personal injury or for seafarers' dependents in the event of death from illness or injury arising from employment Forty per cent of the world's merchant fleet flew flags of convenience in 1994, and in 1995 such vessels accounted for more than half those lost worldwide, as they had done in many past years. (Source: IT Inspectors' Manual, Second [dition, 1996; Inquiry into Ship Safety, Ships of Share, Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Iransport, Corrnunications and Infrastructure, December 1992.)

1977-1993

295

MUA members will be put to the test by this or other governments in the future because their union is a vibrant symbol of the effectiveness of a unionised, disciplined and united workforce. Historically, the MUA's component unions have mer attacks on trade unionism's right to exist, and the standards of living for which trade unionism is responsible, with courage and resilience. If the past is any guide, future attacks on the MUA will be deflected with the traditional support of the ACTU and the wider labour movement. Together they are a formidable force not easily cowed by destructive rhetoric, and nor often defeated, even by the combined determination of their powerful opponents.

299

Chapter notes

Chapter notes CHAPTER I l. Lowenstein W and Hills T, Under the hook, Melbourne Bookworkers in association with the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, Melbourne, 1982, p.4. 2. Fitzpatrick B, Short history of MacMillan, Melbourne, 1968, p.70. 3.ibid, p.80. 4. ibid. pp.101-2.

the Australian labor movement,

5. ibid. p.108.

6. Healy J, "Brief history of the Australian waterfront and the waterside workers' unions", unpublished typescript, 1949, pp.2-3; MUA papers, Archives of Business and Labour, Australian National University, Canberra; Fitzgerald Sand Keating C, Millers Point, Hale and lremonger, Sydney, 1991, p.58. 7. Mitchell W, "Wharf labourers, their unionism and leadership 1872-1916", unpublished PhD thesis, University of New South Wales,

26. Mitchell,

op cit, pp. 282-3, 287-8.

27. Griffiths B, (compiler), Wharfies: a celebration of JOO years on the Fremantle waterfront 1889-1989, Platypus Press, Perth, 1989, p.14; Coghlan, op cit, pp.1572-3. 28. Mitchell, 29. ibid,

op cit, pp.24-6.

pp.34-40.

30. ibid, p.32. 31. Fitzpatrick, 32. ibid, p.118.

op cit, p.116.

33. Coghlan, op cit, p.1601; Lockwood, op cit, pp.94-5. 34. Coghlan, op cit, pp.1595-7. 35. Mitchell, op cit, pp.63-4. 36. Coghlan, op cit, pp. 1602-3.

op cit, p.3. 38. Coghlan, op cit, pp. 1604-6.

37. Walker,

39.ibid, pp.1599-1600.

40. Mitchell, op cit, pp.58-61. 41. ibid, pp.55-58.

1973, p.8.

42. ibid, pp.65-8.

8. Lockwood R, Ship to shore, Hale and lremonger, Sydney, 1990, pp.

43. Sydney Wharf Labourers' Union, Minutes, 12 November 1890, (cited in Mitchell, op cit, p.66). 44. Mitchell, op cit, pp.69-83. 45. Quote in Lockwood, op cit, p.97; ibid p.100. 46. Coghlan TA, Labour and industry in Australia, Vol.4, MacMillan, Melbourne, 1969, p.2076. 47. Griffiths, op cit, pp.17-22. 48. Fitzhardinge L F "W.M. Hughes and the waterside workers", Australian journal of politics and history, Vol. II, No. 2, May 1957, p.170. 49. Mitchell, op cit, pp.79-80. 50. Fitzhardinge, op cit, p.172. 5 l. Mitchell, op cit, pp.98-9.

58-9.

9. Mitchell, op cit, p.10. 10. ibid, pp.15-16. 11. ibid, pp.14-16. 12. ibid, p.17; Fitzgerald and Keating, op cit, p.58. 13. Nelson T, Hungry mile, Sydney, 1957, p.22; Mitchell, op cit, p.27. 14. Mitchell, op cit, pp.17-24; Coghlan TA, Labour and industry in Australia, Yol.3, MacMillan, Melbourne, 1969, pp.1432-3, 1440. 15. Coghlan, op cit, p.1444. 16. Lockwood, op cit, pp.74-5. 17. ibid, p.60, Coghlan, op cit, p.1473. 18. Lockwood, op cit, pp.75, 81. 19. Wight P, "Unionism on the waterfomt at the Port of Geelong 1886-1890", unpublished BA(Hons) thesis, Deakin University, 1990. 20. Lockwood, op cit, pp.59, 78-9. 21. ibid, pp. 81-90; Fitzpatrick, op cit, pp.106-7. 22. Walker R, "Maritime strikes in South Australia, 1887 and 1890",

Labour history, No. 14, May 1968, p.4. 23. South Australian register, 7 September 1872 (cited in Maritime worker, 29 August 1972 p.14). 24. Mitchell, op cit, pp.265-7. 25. Walker, op cit, pp.3-5.

52. Fitzhardinge, op cit, p.173. 53. Mitchell, op cit, pp.85-6. 54. ibid, p.102.

55. ibid, pp. l 03-119. 56. ibid, p.6. 57. Lockwood, op cit, p.69. 58. Mitchell, op cit, p. l3. 59. ibid, pp.8-9. 60. Lockwood, op cit, p.64. 61. Griffiths, op cit, pp.16-17. 62. Mitchell W, "Home life at the hungry mile: Sydney wharf labourers

300

Wharfies

and their families 1900--1914", Labour history, No.33, November 1977, pp.92-3. 63. Fitzgerald and Keating, op cit, p.57. 64. Mitchell, "Home life ...etc" p.77.

301

Chapter notes

22. ibid, pp.337-42. 23. ibid, Appendix V. 24. ibid, pp.350-52.

65. Mitchell, "Wharf labourers ..etc", pp.12-13. 66. Fitzgerald and Keating, op cit, p.58.

25. 1914 Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, Vol.8, No.I, p.53, cited in Mitchell, op cit, p.359. 26. ibid, pp.358-62.

CHAPTER 2

27. Cited ibid, pp.360-61. 28. ibid, pp.370--79. 29. ibid, pp.322-23.

1. Lockwood, op cit, p.101. 2. Mitchell, "Wharf labourers ... ere", pp.193-8; WWF Federal Council, Minutes, 7 February 1902. 3. ibid pp.228-30; WWF Federal Council, Minutes, 1902-3 passim. 4. Mitchell, op cit, pp.237-8; WWF Federal Council and Committee of Management, Minutes, 1902-14, passim. 5. Mitchell, op cit, pp.227, 240; WWF Federal Council, Minutes, 9 Seprem ber 1909. 6. Mitchell, op cit, pp.245-321; WWF Federal Council and Committee of Management, Minutes, 1902-16, passim. Because of gaps in the records, precise accuracy on the formation of all WWF branches is impossible. 7. WWF Federal Council, Minutes, 7 October 1909. 8. Mitchell, op cit, pp.245-321. 9. ibid, pp.233-7; WWF Federal Council, Minutes, 30 April, 8 July, 9

September 1909. IO. Veteran wharfie Don Peel in "Pioneers recall fight to end wharf slavery", Maritime worker, 22 March 1952, p.6. 11. Mitchell, op cit, pp.178-80. 12. Cited ibid, p.176. 13. ibid, pp.162-99; New South Wales Legislative Assembly Yores and Proceedings, Vol 2, Report of Enquiry into Grain Sacks Regulation Bill. 14. Tull M, "Blood on the cargo: Cargo handling and working conditions on the waterfront at Fremantle, 1900-1939", Labour history,

30. Nelson T, "The PM from the waterfront", Maritime worker, December 1985, pp.24-5. 31. Mitchell,

op cit, pp.422-34; Lockwood, op cit, pp.135-39.

32. ibid pp.126-33; Mitchell, op cit, pp.412-19. 33. "An open letter to the wharfies", Direct action, 15 May 1914, cited in Mitchell, op cit, p.436. 34. ibid, pp.445-65; WWF Committee of Management, Minutes, 14 and 15 November 1916. 35. Mitchell, op cit, pp.452-3. 36.York B, "The Maltese, White Australia, and conscription: 'I-Tfal Ta Billy Hughes"', Labour history, No.57, November 1989, pp.1-15. 37. Nelson,

op cit, pp.24-5.

CHAPTER} l. Gaby, Captain James, Restless waterfront, Antipodean Publishers, 1974, p.10.

2. Committee of Management, Minutes, 26/11/1918; 1920s, passim. 3. Lockwood, op cit, pp.202-4. 4. Fitzpatrick, Brian, Short history of the Australian labour movement, MacMillan 1968, p.178; Sawer, Geoffrey, Australian federal politics and

the law, Vol.1, Melbourne University Press,

1956, pp.135, 195.

5. This account of wharf labouring involvement in the 1917 strike is a compilation of material from several sources: Coward, Dan, "Crime and punishment" in lremonger J, et al (eds), Strikes: Studies in twentieth

No.52, May 1987, p.19.

century Australian history, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1973,

15. Mitchell, op cit, pp.119-22. 16. ibid, pp.130-41.

pp.51-80; Fitzpatrick, op cit, pp.186-191; Griffith, op cit, p.29;

op cit, pp.115-18. 18. Mitchell, op cit, pp.207-11; WWF Federal Council, Minutes, 1902-1907, passim. 19. Mitchell, op cit, pp.207-22; WWF Federal Council, op cit. 20. Lockwood, op cit, pp.115-18. 21. Mitchell, op cit, pp.222-5. 17. Lockwood,

Lockwood, op cit, pp.144-178; Nelson, op cit, pp.66-72; Powell, G T, "Uncertain frontiers. A study of the Waterside Workers' Federation in South Australia 1917-1922", BA(Hons) thesis, University of Adelaide, 1966; Turner, lan, Industrial labour and politics, Australian National University Press, Canberra, 1965, Chapter 6; and the Committee of Management, Minutes, passim. 6. Sydney morning herald, 13/8/1917 and 1/9/1917, cited in Coward, op

302

Wharfies

cit, p.77.

7. Sydney morning herald, 8/10/1917, cited in Coward, op cit, p.60. 8. Lockwood, op cit, pp.189-92; Morris, Richard, "Justice Higgins scuppered: the 1919 seamen's strike", Labour history, No.37, November

1979, p.52. 9. "Colebatch the Blood Spiller!", Westralian worker, (official organ of the Western Australian Labor Party), 9 May 1919, p.l, cited in Harris,

Joe, Bitter fight, Universiry of Queensland Press, 1970, p.281. For a different view see Colebatch, Hal, "Manning Clark, my father and 'Bloody Sunday'", Quadrant, Yol.3 2, Nos 1-2, January/February 1988, pp.24 6.

I0. Sources for the section on Fremantle and Bloody Sunday are: Griffiths, op cit, pp.29-37; De Garis, B K "An incident at Fremantle", Labour history, No.10, May 1966; Latter, Bill, "Lumpers dispute 1917" and "Secret army", unpublished research papers; Clark, M, History of Australia, Vol.4, Melbourne University Press, 1987, pp.l20--21; Colebatch, H, op cit; Sheehy, R, "When blood flowed on the Fremantle wharf", Maritime worker, 22/2/1975; and Hopper, Peter, "Bloody Sunday", Maritime worker, 2/9/1975. pp.4--5.

11. Turner, Ian, Sydney's burning, Alpha Books, Sydney, 1967, p.168 12. Sources for information on the WWF and the OBU: Fitzpatrick, op at, pp.182--83; Turner, op cit, Ch.8; Nelson, op cit, pp.31-4; Lockwood, op cit, pp.169-71; Powell, op cit, pp.183-211, Committee of

Management, Minutes, passim. 14. Tull, M, op cit, pp.21-23. 15. Arbitration Court proceedings cited in Lockwood, op cit, p. I 70. 16. "History of stevedoring in Australia, as disclosed in reports of Industrial Tribunals, Royal Commissions etc", unpublished typescript, MUA papers, p.24. 17. Committee of Management, Minutes, 1 October I 925. 18. Healy, J, op cit, pp.30-39; Nelson, op cit, p.69; Powell, op cit, pp.81-84. "History of stevedoring •. etc", pp.9-31; Committee of Management, Minutes, October 1 and November 6 1925, and passim. 19. "Case for the rotary system", Bowen Branch leaflet, WW F newspaper cuttings 1923-28, Vol.257, Mitchell Library deposit Q331.87/W. 20. ibid.

21. Forest, M, "Farmers", Telegraph, 6 November 1925, WWF newspaper

Chapter notes

303

1923-28, op cit. 24. Letter, signed

"Yours for Communism", 2 January 1926, WWF newspaper cuttings 1923-28, op cit. 25. The chief sources for the Cairns rotary dispute are: typescript; pamphlets; letter; newspaper cuttings from the Daily mail, Daily standard, Cairns post, Telegraph, Workers' weekly and Smiths weekly 1924-1928, W'WF newspaper cuttings 1923-28, op cit; Committee of Management, Minutes, October and November 1925; and Healy, op cit, pp.40 41a. 26. Committee of Management, Minutes, May and June 1926, passim. 27. Greenwood, Kerry, "Lean times. A study of the Melbourne waterfront during the 1928 Strike.', unpublished typescript. 28. Committee of Management, Minutes, passim; WWF Special Conference and Triennial Conference, Minutes, 1926 and 1927.

CHAPTER 4 1. Anonymous folk refrain, probably dating from the 1890s. 2. Greenwood, op cit, pp.3-8; the reference to "bee money" is from Lockwood, op cit, p.218. 3. Hagan, Jim, History of the ACTU, Longman Cheshire, 1981, pp.89--90; Committee of Management, Minutes, April-June 1928, passim.

4. Lockwood, op cit, pp.223-30; "History of stevedoring ... etc", pp.31-35; 26 CAR 867. 5. Committee of Management Special Meeting, Minutes, 26-31 July, 1928; Committee of Management, Minutes, 24 August-25 October,

1928; Triennial Conference, Minutes, 6-13 September, 1928; Greenwood, op cit, pp.11-17; Hagan, op cit, pp.90-91; Lockwood, op cit, pp.233-47. 6. Mitchell,

op cit, pp.239-44. 7. Powell, op cit, p.36. 8. Nelson, op cit, p.46. 9. "History of Stevedoring ... ere", pp.36-38; Lockwood,

op cit,

pp.244-47; Sawer, Geoffrey, Australian federal politics and the law:

1909-1929, Vol.I, Melbourne University Press, 1956, p.265. 10. Committee of Management, Minutes, 24 August--25 October, 1928; Lockwood, op cit, pp.249--61. 11. ibid, p.261; Committee of Management, Minutes, October 25, 1928.

cuttings 1923-28, op cit.

12. Lockwood, op cit, pp.263-66; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.60.

22. Cairns post, 3, 4 November 1925, WWF newspaper cuttings

13. Advertiser,

1923-28, op cit. 23. Workers' weekly, 11 December 1925, WWF newspaper cuttings

15. Lockwood, op cit, pp.282-89; Lowenstein and Hills, p.63

Adelaide, 28 September 1928. 14. Interview wiuh Arrhur Shertook, November 1995.

Wharfies

304

16. Cited ibid, p.64. 17. Cited ibid. 18. "1928 victim dies", Maritime

Chapter notes

305

pp.80-81.

worker, 29 May 1979, p.l.

19. Lockwood, op cit, pp.263-69. 20. Gaby, op cit, pp.27-28. 21. Fitzpatrick, op cit, pp.192-200; Robertson, JR, in Crowley, F (ed), New history of Australia, William Heinemann, 1974, p.416; Committee of Management, Minutes, 12 November, 1929. 22. Fraser, B (ed), Macquarie book of events, Macquarie Library, 1983, p.346; Page. M, Prime Ministers of Australia, Robertsbridge, 1988, pp.56-57; Radi. H, in Crowley, op cit, pp.413--14; Robertson, JR, in ibid, pp.435, 441. 23. Committee of Management, Minutes, April 8, May 15, Oct 21-Dec 10, 1929; April 28-May 30, 1930; May 11-June 26, October 26-Nov

39. ibid, p.81. 40. ibid, p.82.

op cit, p.91. 42. Triennial Conference, Minutes, 28 October-12 November, 1937; Committee of Management, Minutes, 12-22 November, 1937. 43. Macintyre, op cit, p.266 41. Fitzgerald and Keating,

44. ibid, pp.294-96; quote from ibid, p.295.

45. Triennial Conference, Minutes, 25 October--8 November, 1937; biographical information on Jim Healy from Lockwood, op cit, pp.339--43 and Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, pp.84- 6. 8

CHAPTER 5

21, 1931

1. Cited in Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, 1982, p.86.

(quote from May 14, 1929); Page, op cit, pp.60-61; Robertson, op cit,

2. The most comprehensive account of the South Coast pig iron ban is contained in Rupert Lockwood, War on the waterfront: Menzies, Japan and the pig-iron dispute, Hale and lremonger, Sydney, 1987.

pp.419-29. 24. Committee of Management, Minutes, April 27-May 19, October 24-December 22, 1932; May 12-June 16, 1933. 25. Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.79; "History of Stevedoring ...etc", pp.4244.

26. Committee of Management, Minutes, 20, 27, 28 May, 1930. 27. ibd, 27 May, 1931.

28. ibid, 19 December, 1932. 29. ibid, 6 May, 1932. 30. ibid, 2-10 July, 5-21 November, 1934; Membership figures from list of membership of branches 1928 and 1934 accompanying Committee of Management, Minutes, 1934. 31. Tull, op cit, pp.17-18; Quote from Fremantle Branch Minutes 23 July 1932, cited

ibid.

32. Committee of Management, Minutes, 10 November, 1932, 10 July, 1934; Special Conference, Minutes, 22-29 June, 1934. 33. Committee of Management, Minutes, 24 October--22 December, 1932. 34. "Keep up the Turley fight", Maritime worker, (organ of the Transport Group of the CPA), 29 March, 1933. 35. Committee of Management, Minutes, 27 May-15 June, 28 October--12 November, 1935. 36. CAR 263 and 264 of 1936; "History of stevedoring ... etc", pp.40-45.

3. Workers' weekly, 15 April 1938, cited in Silverman, Sondra, "Australian political strikes", Labour history, No.11, November 1966, p.32. 4. ILWU story:

Three decades of militant unionism, Information Department International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, San Francisco 1963. 5. Telephonic communication to Committee of Management, 28 May, 1938.

6. Although there is some dissension, the creation of the nick-name "Pig Iron Bob" is usually attributed to Stan Moran; see his Reminiscenses of a rebel, Alternative Publishing Co-op, Chippendale, 1979, pp. 17-18. 7. Blainey, G, Steelmaster, Melbourne 1971, cited in White, Jon, "The Port Kembla pig-iron strike", Labour history, No.37, November 1979, p.72.

8. Material relating to the pig iron dispute is gleaned from many sources: Griffith, Garry, "Growing militancy of the South Coast Branch of the Waterside Workers' Federation 1930-1939", unpublished BA(Hons) thesis, University of Wollongong; Healy, op cit, pp.61-63; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, pp.83-86; McDougall, Derek, "Australian labour movement and the Sino-Japanese War, 1937--1939", Labour history,

Penguin, 1984, p.A.

No.33, November 1937, pp.39-52; Richardson, Len. "Dole queue patriots" in lremonger, J, Merritt, J, and Osborne, G (eds), Strikes, Angus and Robertson, 1973; Roach, Ted, "Menzies and pig iron for

38. Recollections of Harry Sisson, in Lowenstein and Hills, op cit,

Japan", paper given to Newcastle Labour history Conference, June, 1993;

37. Morrison, John, "The Compound", in Stories of the waterfront,

306

Wharfies

Chapter notes

307

White, Jon, op cit, pp.63-77; Williams, Victor, Years of Big Jim, Lone Hand Press 1975, pp.4O--42; and Committee of Management, Minutes of the period, passim. 9. Roach, op cit. 10. Letter from R Coleman, Secretary of lnnisfail Branch, to Committee of Management, 6 June, 1938. 11. Tom Hills in Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.87. 12. Healy, op cit, p.63; "History of stevedoring .. etc", p.46; Williams, op cit, pp.65--67; Committee of Management, Minutes, 1938-1945, passim. 13. ibid, 12June 1941. 14. Morrison, J, "Going through", in Stories of the waterfront, Penguin,

33. Special Committee of Management, Minutes, 19 January 1944; Federal Council, Minutes, September 1944; Federal Executive, Minutes, December 1944 and 15 January 1945; Triennial Conference, Minutes, 12 November 1943. 34. Federal Council, Minutes, 21 June 1945. 35. Committee of Management, Minutes, 30 October 1940; Triennial Conference, Minutes, 1 November 1943; Williams, op cit, p.59. 36. Clarke, F G, "Labour and the Catholic Social Studies movement", Labour history, No.20, May 1971, pp.49-50; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.100; Williams, op cit, pp.107-109. 37. Lockwood, Rupert, Black Armada, Australasian Book Society,

Melbourne 1984, p.35.

Sydney 1975, p.12.

15. "History of stevedoring ... etc", pp.48-51. 16. Morris, Richard, "Australian stevedoring and shipping labour under the Transport Workers Act 1928-47", Great circle, Vol.ll, No.2, 1989,

38. This account is condensed from Lockwood, ibid. See also Golian, op cit, pp.235-39; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.117; and Williams

p.26.

17. Text of undated Harry Bridges letter contained in Committee of Management, Minutes, 3 November 1942. 18. Healy, op cit, p.66; "History of stevedoring ..etc", pp.52-53. 19. Golian, op cit, p.130. 20. Symons, Beverley, "All-out for the people's war: 'Red Diggers' in the armed forces and the Communist Party of Australia's policies in the Second World War", BA (Hons) thesis, University of Wollongong, 1993, pp.33-42.

21. Quote is from Nelson, op cit, Sydney 1957, p.77. General sources for material about the establishment of the Stevedoring Industry Commission and opposition to the rotary system: Healy, op cit, pp.66--67; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, pp.93-94; Nelson, op cit, pp.77-79; Williams, op cit, pp.45--59; and Committee of Management, Minutes, June 1942. 22. lncerview, Arthur Shertock, November 1995. 23. McQueen Report, cited in Nelson, op cit, p.119. 24. ibid, p.115.

25. ibid, pp.115-19. 26. "Welfare of waterside workers", Maritime worker, 3 June 1942, p.l 27. Committee of Management, Minutes, 6 September 1944. 28. Federal Council, Minutes, 20 September 1944. 29. Committee of Management, Minutes, 4,6 June 1942. 30. Lowenstein Hills, op cit, pp.96-97, 107. 31. Committee of Management, Minutes, 17 June 1943. 32. Federal Executive, Minutes, 1, 2, 29 November 1944; Maritime worker, 20 January 1945, p.l.

op cit, pp.60-64. 39. "History of stevedoring .. etc", p.53; Healy op cit, p.70. 40. Nelson, op cit, p.54; Federal Council, Minutes, 21 May 1946; Sheridan, Tom, "Australian wharfies 1943-1967: Casual attitudes,

militant leadership and workplace change", Journal of industrial relations, Vol.36, No.2, June 1944, p.271; Federal Council, Minutes, 2 July 1945;

Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.116. 41. Healy, op cit, p.69; Federal Council, Minutes, 9 December 1946, 14 January 1947. 4 2. ibid, April--May 1946; Biennial Conference, Minutes 1-17 May 1 946; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, pp.123-4; Williams, op cit, p.109. 43. Federal Council, Minutes, May 1946, 20 January, November 1947; Federal Executive, Minutes, 21 November 1947. 44. Federal Council, Minutes, 14 September 1944. 45.ibid, 14 January 1947.

46. Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, pp.130-31; Williams, op cit, pp.70-74. 47. Gollan, op cit, pp.206-12. 48. Federal Executive, Minutes, March--August 1948; Davidson, Alastair, Communist party of Australia, Hoover Institution Press, 1969, p.133; Williams, op cit, pp.80-82. 49. "Who says it didn't happen here", Maritime worker, 13 March 1948,

p.3.

50. Golian, op cit, pp.234-35. 51. Federal Council, Minutes, 2 May 1949; Gollan, op cit, pp.242-43. 52. Hagan, op cit, p.152.

53. Special Federal Council, Minutes, 2-10 May 1949. 54. "History of stevedoring... etc", pp.52-54; Williams, op cit, pp.84 87. 55. Gollan, op cit, p.247.

308

Wharfies

56. Golian, op cit, pp.213-14, 246; Hagan, op cit, pp.128--29. 57. Federal Executive, Minutes, 29 July, 3 August 1949; Federal

Chapter notes

25. Federal Council, Minutes, 1, 4 June 1951; Williams, op cit, p.97.

Council, Minutes, 11 November 1949; Williams, op cit, pp.90--94.

26. ASIB Report, 1951, p.18; ASIB Report, 1952, pp.20-21 27. ASIB Report, 1953, p.13.

58. Gollan, op cit, pp.247-78; Williams, op cit, pp.90--94; Federal Executive, Minutes, 19 August 1949. 59. Federal Executive, Minutes, 9 August 1949.

28. Federal Executive, Minutes, 9 October 1951. 29. Hagan, op cit, p.242.

CHAPTER 6

309

30. ASIB Report, 1952, pp.20-21

31. This account of Operation Alien is a condensation of the work of Louis, Les, "Operation Alien' and the Cold War in Australia", Labour history, No.62, May 1992, pp.l-18.

1. Tom Hills, cited in Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.123. 2. Louis, Les, ""Operation Alien' and the Cold War in Australia", Labour history, No.62, May 1992, p.16; and Federal Council, Minutes, August 1950.

32. ibid, p.6

3.ibid. p.3.

Waterside Workers' Federation, Sydney Port, 1992, pp.12-13. 35. 6th Biennial All Ports Conference, Minutes, 15 October 1956. 36. Maxwell, Ron, "\Watersiders as sports stars", Maritime worker, 24 October 1978, p.11. 37. This account of the cultural endeavours of Sydney Branch, including artistic activities, the Waterside Workers' Film Unit, the wharfies' mural and the Sydney Branch panels, is drawn entirely from Reeves, op cit. 38. Spate, Virginia, "Introduction", in Reeves, op cit.

4. ibid. p.17.

5. Cited in Golian, op cit, p.258. 6. ibid, pp.255-67 7. Louis, op cit, pp.15-16 8. Gollan, op cit; Williams, op cit, p.121. 9. Federal Council, Minutes, 30 August 1951. 10. Louis, op cit, pp.9-10; Federal Council, Minutes, 26 September 1952.

33. Recollections of Howard Connors, reported to the author by Tas Bull, July 1995. 34. Reeves, Andrew, Tapestry of Australia: the Sydney wharfies mural,

11. "First aid dispute in Sydney", Maritime worker, 14 January 1950, p.3; Australian Stevedoring Industry Board (ASIB), Report, 1950, pp.71-72 12. Sydney morning herald, 6 January 1950 p.2. 13. Cited in Federal Executive, Minutes, 28 March 1950. 14. "Two employers accept rotation", Maritime worker, 25 March 1950, p.l; ASIB Report, 1950, pp.72-73 15. "Mackay dispute and contempt proceedings", Maritime worker, 13 January 1951, p.l; ASIB Report, 1951, pp.16-17. 16. Federal Executive, Minutes, 4 January 1951. 17. Federal Council, Minutes, 9 March 1951; the cartoon appeared in Maritime worker, 13 January 1951, p.l 18. Interview with Ted Roach, 6 February 1995. 19. Federal Executive, Minutes, 1, 2 March 1951. 20. Munro, W G, "Townsville welcomes Ted Roach", Maritime worker, 23 February 1952, p.5.

39. ibid, p.37

21. Williams, op cit, p.97.

contained in Federal Council, Minutes, 10 November 1954. 51. Press statement in Federal Council, Minutes, 4 November 1954. 52. Transcript of Menzies' broadcast in Daily telegraph, 8 November 1954, p. l. 53. Federal Council, Minutes, 4 November 1954.

22. Federal Executive, Minutes, l March, 9 July 1951; Federal Council, Minutes, 1 June 1951; ASIB Report, 1951, p.19. 23. ibid, pp.20-21 24. Federal Council, Minutes, 31 May, 1 June 1951.

40. Federal Executive, Minutes, 31 March 1950; Biennial Conference, Minutes, 7 September 1950; Federal Council, Minutes, 19 September 1950. 41. Maritime worker, 19 January 1954, p.2 42. Williams, op cit, pp.97-119; Maritime worker, 1 April 1954, p.l. 43. op cit, 27 July 1954, p.4.

44. 0p cit, 25 January 1955, p. l.

45. Williams, op cit, p.139. 46. Sydney morning herald, 13 November 1954, p.2. 47. 0p cit, 5 November 1954, p.4. 48. op cit, 4 November 1954 p.l. 49. Williams, op cit, p.129.

50. Part contents of the Van Bookove letter reproduced in a circular letter from Jim Healy to all parliamentarians, 8 November 1954,

310

Wharfies

Chapter notes

311

54. Daily telegraph, 10 November 1954, p.3. 55. Statement issued 9 November 1954, reproduced in Federal Council, Minutes, 10 November 1954. 56. Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.142. 57. Cited in Griffiths. op cit, p.74. 58. Federal Council, Minutes, 4, 5 November 1954. 59. op cir, 10 November 1954; Williams, op cit, p.138. 60. ASIB Report, 1955, pp.16-23. 61. Federal Council, Minutes, 12 November 1954. 62. Williams. op cit, pp.138-141.

89. Williams, op cit, p.194. 90. Letter from Dr J V Duhig to Secretary, Brisbane WWF Branch, 2 October 1956, reproduced in Federal Council, Minutes, 30 October 1956. 91. Williams, op cit, pp.191-94; Sheridan, op cit, pp.258-84. 92. "Historic win on Princess", Maritime worker, 6 October 1959, p.l. 93. "Life story told at last farewell", Maritime worker, 26 July 1961, p.3. 94. Recollections of Tas Bull. 95. Sydney morning herald, 18 July 1961 p.8 96. ibid, 14 July 1961, p.6.

morning herald, 16 February 1955, p.2. 64. Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority (ASIA), Report, 1956, pp.16-17; Williams, op cit, pp.145-50; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit,

97. ibid, 4 July 1961, p.8.

63. Sydney

p.144.

65. Letter from Nonn Docker, WWF Industrial Officer, Sydney morning herald, 26 January 1956, p.2. 66. Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, pp.146-47; Williams, op cit, pp.150--55. 67. Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.145. 68. "Song dance, music rallied more help", Maritime worker, 21 February 1956, p.2. 69. "WA wharfies' wives cover biggest state", Maritime worker, 10 February 1956, p.7. 70. Leaflet reproduced in Maritime worker, 10 February 1956, p.6. 71. Williams, op cit, p.156. 72. Cited ibid, p.159. 73. ibid, pp.156-58. 74. Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, pp.14849. 75. Sydney morning herald, 9 February 1956, p.2. 76. Williams, op cit, pp.158-60.

77. ibid, pp.163--64. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82.

ASIB Report, 1956, pp.6-7. Williams, op cit, pp.164-65; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.150. ASIA, Report, 1957, pp.7-8. Williams, op cit, pp.165-67; Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.150. This account of the Hursey Case is drawn from Bull, Tas, Politics in a union: the Hursey Case, Alternative Publishing, Sydney, 1977. 83. ibid, p.122.

98. ibid, 5 July 1961, p.2. 99. "Results of WWF triennial elections", Maritime worker, 26 July 1961, p.5. 100. Federal Council, Minutes, 18 July 1961. 101. Sydney morning herald, 18 July 1961, p.6. 102. Daily telegraph, 21 July 1961, p.21. 103. Sydney morning herald, 14 August 1961, p.2. 104. ibid, 18 August 1961, p.2. 105. "Fitzgibbon gets 2227 majority", Maritime worker, 6 December 1961, p.l. 106. Sydney morning herald, 14 July 1961, p.2.

CHAPTER 7 1. Cited in Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.162 ASIA, Report, 1961, pp.40-42. "Age can't dim fighting spirit", Maritime worker, 7 June 1961, p.l Federal Council, Minutes, 16 June 1961. ASIA, Report, 1961, p.77. 6. "Stop works united to beat attacks", Maritime worker, 24 May 1961,

2. 3. 4. 5.

p.l. 7. "Federation mobilises for all out campaign", op cir. 4 April 1962, p.l. 8. "Country campaigns won wide support", op cit, 17 Februar,• 1965, p.7; "Great nation-wide publicity campaign", op cit, 18 April 1962, p.l; "Federation carries on struggle for Act changes", op cit, 2 May 1962,p.l.

9. "Significant gain' from campaign against longleave anomalies,

84. Cited, ibid, p.77.

penalties", op cit, 4 July 1962, p.l; "Federation campaign leads to vital

85. Cited ibid, p.81. 86. Cited ibid, p.118. 87. Cited ibid, p.124. 88. ibid, p.125.

longleave law changes" op cit, 10 October 1962. p.l. 10. "Important session of federal council", op cit, 24 October 1962, p.l.

11. "Federal unions' conference sought to fight penalties", ibid, p.l. 12. Fitzgibbon, C, "Shackling the wharfies", Dissent, Spring 1963, p.2l.

312

Wharfies

Chapter notes

313

The Australian union movement, and the WWF in particular, was subject to an extraordinary range of punitive sanctions in the 1960s: within individual awards; under the Crimes Act; under Section 109( 1 ), Semon 111, Section 119 of Part YI, Section 138 of Part VIII, Section 125, and Section 182(3), (4) and (SJ of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act; and under normal common law

36. Federal Council, Minutes, 27 September 1965.

proceedings. The WWF was also subject to specially targeted penal legislation in Sections 23, 36, 44, 52A and 54 of the Stevedoring

39. Information on various Communist Party line-ups from interview

3 7. Deery, S, "National Stevedoring Industry Conference and its impact on industrial relations in the Australian stevedoring industry", M Com thesis, Melbourne University 1978, p.47. 38. Press statement contained in Federal Council, Minutes, 24 September 1965. . .

19. "US pension, mechanisation, modernisation agreements", Maritime

with Tas Bull, July 1995. 40. Federal Council, Minutes, 27 September 1968. 41. 0p cit, 27 September 1965. 42. Maritime worker, passim 1960s and early 1970s. 43. "Vietnam thanks", op cit, I August 1962, p.2. 44. Special Federal Council, Minutes, 5 May 1965. 45. Federal Council, Minutes, 27 September 1965. 46. Elliott, D, "Why seamen banned Vietnam war cargoes", Maritime workers' journal, November 1995, pp.23-26. 47. Interview with Harry Black, Sydney, 6 December 1995; and "Refusal to load Jeparit", Maritime worker, 22 December 1969, p.3.

worker, 26 February

48. Slater, Vic, "Brisbane civil liberties fight", op cit, 28 April 1969. p.#;

Industry Act. The 1961 amendments to the Act relating to long service leave and attendance money were additional to these. This information from Maritime worker, 24 October 1962, p.4. 13. ibid. 14. ibid, p.28.

IS. ibid. 16. ibid.

17. ASIA, Report, 1963, pp.34, 46--47. 18. ibid, p.43. 1964, p.6.

op cit, 12 February

"Council backs Docker in his conscription fight", op cit, 27 October 1969, p.3; "Officers sign for defiance", op cit, 17 November 1969, p.l.

21. "Long history of pension fight", op cit, 10 March 1965, p.2. 23 years we have been patient", op cit, p.l. 23. "Sydney carries its campaign into the country", op cit, 31 March

49. "Vietnam: we were right all along", Maritime workers' jouwral, May/June 1995, p.23.

20. Symon, P D, "Mechanisation impact in SA", 1964, p.A 22. "For

1965, p.2. 24. "Slings and arrows", Nation, 21 August 1965, pp.12--13. 25. Fitzgibbon, C, "Pension talks break down", Maritime worker, 26 May 1965, pp.1, 6.

26. Special Federal Council, Minutes, 3, 4, 5 27. Sheridan, op cit, pp.258-284.

May 1965.

on industrial relations on the Australian waterfront', Journal of industrial

28. ASIA, Report, 1965, pp.39-40. 29. "ACTU and Federation condemn wharf inquiry",

relations, Vol.20, No.2, June 1978, p.208.

Maritime worker,

30 June 1965, p.l. 30. "Overwhelming vote for fortnightly stoppages",

50. Maritime worker, special issue, 24 April 1967, p.A. 51. Freame, op cit, pp.278-79. 52. Sheridan, op cit, p.281. 53. Interview with Geoff Swayn, Melbourne, 18 November 1993. 54. Interview with Ted Bull, Melbourne, 18 November 1993. 55. Deery, S, "Impact of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference

op cit, 11 August

1965, p.l.

56. Freame, op cit, p.279. 57. Deery, op cit, pp.210-11; Freame, op cit, pp.278-79. 58. Deery, op cit. 59. ibid, pp.202-203.

31. Freame, C A, "National Stevedoring Industry Conference, September 1965 to May 1969", Joural of industrial relations, Vol.l1, No.3, November 1969, p.276. 32. Newton, M, "Waterside cave-in", Nation, 16 October 1965, p.7. 33. Special Federal Council, Minutes, 3, 4, 5 May 1965. 34. Federal Council, Minutes, 20 September, 1965.

60. Al Greenwood, cited in Lowenstein and Hills, op cit, p.166. 61. ASIA, Report, 1968, p.9. 62. Freame, op cit, pp.280-81. 63. ASIA. Report, 1970, p.9.

35. ibid.

66. "Call to Melbourne for discipline, unity", Maritime worker, 11 April

64. ASIA, Report, 1973, p.l2; 1977. p.9.

65. ASIA, Reports 1970-1977,passim.

314

Wharfies

1968, p.6. 67. Fitzgibbon, C, "Federation's policy", op cit, 26 April 1968, p.2. 68. Deery, op cit, p.213.

69. ASIA, Report, 1968, p.2. 70. "New agreement clarifies equalisation scheme", Maritime warker, 11 April 1968, p. l. 71. ASIA, Report, 1969, pp.43-44. 72. ASlA, Report, 1970, p.44. 73. "Council votes for action if claims not granted", Maritime warker, 16 March 1970, p.l. 74. "Federation wins record wages, leave victories", op cit, 13 April 1970, p.8.

75. ASlA, Report, 1971, pp.57-58. 76. Cited in "Why just now Mr Lynch?", Bulletin, 15 January 1972, p.17. 77. ASIA, Report, 1972, p.13; "Summary of main negotiations results" Maritime worker, Special Contract Edition, 18 April 1972, pp.2-3. ' 78. Interview with Harry Black, Sydney, 6 December 1995. 79. ASlA, Report, 1973, p.13. 80. Hicks, I, "They call it the world's most inefficient port", Sydney 15 October 1974, p.6; "Case for one union on the waterfront", op cit, 17 October 1974, p.7. 81. "Contract talks", Maritime worker, 26 February 1974, p.3. 82. ASlA, Report, 1974, p.14. moring herald,

83 - "Con tract negotiations breakdown reasons", Maritime worker, 16 April 1974, p.2; "Final contract vote", op cit, 4 June 1974, p.3. 84. Carr, B, "Australian trade unionism in 1975", Joumal of industrial relations, Vol.17, December 1975, pp.412-23. 85. ASlA, Report, 1975, pp.11-13. 86. ASIA, Report, 1976, p.9. 87. ASIA, Report, 1976, p.34. 88. ibid, p.10. 89. Spiers, J, "For containers, read coffins: why the waterfront is a shambles", The Australian, 6 September 1976, p.9. 90. Spiers, J, "You can't put all the blame on the wharfies: why the waterfront is still a shambles", The Australian, 7 September 1976, p.11. 91. ASIA, Report, 1975, p.12. 92. ASIA, Report, 1976, p.17. 93. Federal Council, Minutes, 3, 7 October 1975. 94. ASIA, Report, 1977, pp.7-8. 95. Deery, op cit, pp.220-21.

Chapter notes

315

CHAPTER 8 1. General Secretary Charlie Fitzgibbon announcing the WWF's intention to embark on a campaign for an industry union, Federal Council, Minutes, 8 September 197 8. 2. Car, B, "Why we need industry unions", Bulletin, 26 September 1978, pp.22-23; Cart, B, "Australian trade unionism in 1978", Journal of industrial relations, Vol.21, March 1979, p.100. 3. Federal Council, Minutes, 8 September 1978. 4. Armstrong, D, "Wharfies' fight to control the waterfront", Bulletin, 14 August 1979, p.28. 5. ibid, pp.28 and 31. 6. Federal Council, Minutes, Rule Change Report, 18 September 1979. 7. This account of the WWF's disputes with CBH was supplied by Vic Slater. 8. Federal Council, Minutes, Federal Officers' Report, 3 and 5 September 1980. 9. Maritime warker, September 1980, pp.I and 17. 10. op cit, December 1980, pp.I, 3,21, 23 and 25. 1 1. "Wharfies are riding to the rescue", Australian, 8 April 1982, p.19. 12. Federal Council, Minutes, 14 September 1981. 13. Mills, B, "Sound and fury on the waterfront', Australian financial

review, 29 January 1982, pp.35-36. 14. "Waterfront decision will open road to demarcation struggle", News

weekly, 7 April, 1982. 15. "Wharfies are riding to the rescue", Australian, 8 April 1982, p.19. 16. "Federal Court OKs 'open slather' on demarcation disputes", News weekly, 11 May 1983, p.7. 17. Federal Council, Minutes, 19 September 1983. 18. National Conference, Minutes, 19 September 1991. 19. Ellercamp, P, "Charlie Fitzgibbon. union demagogue, calls it a day". Weekend Australian magazine, pp.Z, 3-4 May 1983.

20. "We will deliver the goods, ACTU chief assures delegates", Australian, 13 April 1983, p.l. 21. Ellercamp, op cit. 22. "Fitzgibbon's letter of resignation", Maritime worker, May 1983, p.5. 23. D'Alpuget. B, Robert J Hawke, Penguin, Melbourne, 1984, p.155. 24. Ellercamp, op cit.

25. Interview with Geoff Swayn, Melbourne, 18 November 1993. 26. Jamieson, Anne, "Trouble on the waterfront", Weekend Australian, 16-17 April 1988. 27. Maritime worker, July 1984, pp.3 and 6.

28. Interview with John Coombs, December 1995.

Wharfies

316

29. Federal Council, Minutes, 30. ibid. 31. Maritime

Federal Officers' Report, September 1983.

worker, August 1984, p.21.

32. op cit, June 1984, pp.I and 17. 33. 0p cit, July 1985, p. l. 34. Federal Council, Minutes, Federal Officers' Report, September 1983. 35. Maritime worker, August 1984, pp.20-23. 36. All Ports' Conference, Federal Officers' Report, September 1985. 37. Federal Council, Minutes, 30 September 1985. 38. ibid. 39. Text of letter contained in Federal Council, Minutes, ibid. 40. ibid. 41. Maritime worker, July 1986, p.3. 42. ibid. 43. 0p cit, September 1986, p.5. 44. Cited ibid. 45. Special Federal Council, Minutes, Federal Officers' Report,

February

1987. 46. Maritime worker, 47. ibid. p.l1.

February 1987, p.4.

48. Special Federal Council, Minutes, op cit. 49. Maritime worker, August 1987, p.3. 50. Special Federal Council, Minutes, April 1988. 51. Maritime worker, April 1988, pp.2 and 17. 52. All Ports Conference, Minutes, 15 September 1988. 53. Media release, 17 February 1988, reproduced in Special Federal Council, Minutes, April 1988. 54. Maritime worker, April 1989, p.3.

55. Maritime worker, May 1989, p.13. 56. ibid. 57. Maritime worker, June 1989, pp.4-5.

58. Interview with Tas Bull, July 1995. 59. Maritime worker, June 1989, p.3. 60. Maritime worker, July 1989, pp.4-5. 61. ibid. 62. Maritime worker,

September 1989, p.5. Minutes, Federal Officers' Report, September 1992. November 1989, p.3. 65. Federal Council, Minutes, October 1989. 66. Maritime worker, October 1989, pp.2-7. 67. Federal Council, Minutes, October 1989. 63. Federal Council, 64. Maritime worker,

68. ibid.

Chapter notes

317

69. Interview with Jim Beggs, Melbourne, 18 November 1993. 70. Federal Executive, Minutes, June 1992. 71. Maritime worker, August 1988, pp.16--17, October 1988, p.3; Special Federal Council, Minutes, February 1990. 72. Federal Executive, Minutes, April 1989. 73. Federal Council, Minutes, September 1984, and 1984 89 passim. 74. All Ports Conference, Minutes, September 1988. 75. Information on the ACTU and WWF campaign against the 1991 national wage case decision supplied by Greg Comber. 76. Special Federal Council, Minutes, April 1989. 77. Federal Council, Minutes, September 1991. 78. Federal Council, Minutes, Federal Officers' Report, September 1992. 79. Maritime worker, May 1993, pp.9-11. 80. Information on the Section 118A application supplied by Greg Comber. 81. Address by Bill Kelty, National Conference, Minutes, September 1991. 82. ibid.

83. Federal Council, Minutes, September 1992. 84. Maritime worker, February 1993, pp.l7-19; and interview with Tas Bull, Sydney, October 1995. 85. ibid.

219

Index

Index Page numbers appearing in italics indicate the entry is the subject of a photograph. A Aanensen, "Snipe" 116,

132 Aaw, Fred 166 Ackers, Richard 69, 70 ACT 1228 Adelaide 3, 8, 11, 12, 16, 45. 73,82.84,86, 110, 133,161, 215 Albany 25, 46, 249 Albury 14

Alford. Gus 139, 164, 198, 199 Altona 173

Anderson. Sir Alan 89 Antony, Ernest 78 Antwerp 228 Aorangi 158

Arceri, Arch 247, 285 Ardrossan 239

Ashbumer. Justice 175, 176, 180, 182, 183

Aubrey, Reverend Father 17 Australian Endzavour 227

B

Bacchus Marsh 25 Bailey, K R 134 Bangladesh 236 Baroni, E 117 Barrett, Syd "Ivo" 134, 159, 185,244,289 Bass Trader 196

Batchelor, J 22 Beasley, Jack 123 Beauty Point 25, 124, 203 Beeby award 76, 77-82, 83, 84, 92, 94, 98-100 Bee by, Justice

GS 74, 75,

113 Beggs, Jim 247, 277, 284, 285,289 Beggs, Mahs I 96 Beitz, J 134,141,179, 202, 289 Bergin, Peter 254 Bills, A 134 Black, C 134 Black, Harry 166, 177, 218,

219 Blackbum, Maurice 88, 9 l, 97, 102 Bland, Henry 169, 193, 202,204 Bolger, Bob 166, 184, 219, 237 Bolitho, Bill 291, 292 Boonaroo 21 8 Bottos, Leone 293 Bowen 23, 52, 53, 66, 67, 89,93, 94, 133, 151,

155-159, 239 Boyle, Jim (Jr) 91 Boyle, Jimmy 91 Brarnford, F W 22 Braund, J 109 Breheny, JG 188 Brennan, General E T9I Brereton, Laurie 291, 292 Bridges, Harry I 06, 113, 143, 207, 214

Brisbane passim Britain 2, 14, 19, 64, 125, 141,161,201,222,228, 235, 262 Broken Hill 12 Broome 172, 239 Brophy, Leo 72, 73 Brown, 93, 94 Brown, Leo 288 Brownlee, Jim 237 Bruce, Stanley Melbourne 46,47,68,81,89,292 Buckeridge, Len 291 Bull, Anders 252 Bull, Tas 132,218,219, 239, 240, 241, 258-260,

261,262,264,268,271, 273,274,280,284,285, 286,287,288,289,290 Bu!J, Ted 134, 148, 165, 214,221,222,289 Bunbury 25 Bundaberg 25, 68, 87, 89, 94,121,122,124,239 Bunn, A 134 Barnie 25, 48, 284,

Buttigieg, Joe 285

Cuba 211,212

Ellston, Peter 257, 260

Cum berlidge, Claude 247,

Encounter Bay 226

263,273,285 Cummins, Jim 164, 165

England see Britain Englar, Ted 129 Esperance 46 Eucla 46 Eureka Stockade 108

C

Curruthers, Jimmy 17 1

Cadden, Joe 82 Cain, Pat 139 Cairns 13, 32, 65-72, 73,

Currin, J 134, 142 Curtin, John 111, 115, 116, 117, 125, 207 Curtis, George 189 Czechoslovakia 215

82, 94, 174, 196, 207 Calhoun, Rona 173 Cameron, Clyde 240

Canada 158 Canadian Inventor, S.8. 74 Canberra 91, 117, 165, 180,208,259 Carl Veron 46

Camarvon 172,239 Carrol, Teddy 91 Carroll, Paddy 230 Carroll, Roy 226 Carter, Joe 94 Cassidy, Hopalong 173

Chapman, Austin 31, 38 Chapman, M 280 Chapple, Jerry 134 Charles, Trevor 230 Charleston 256 Chifley, Ben 125, 130, 144 China 104-109, 136, 141, 143, 145

Chip, Donald 212 Clark, 97 Clarke, 1-1 E134, 142, 164 Clarke, Jim 247 Cockle, Jack I 85 Coghlan, 97

D Daley, W M 28, 31 Dalfram 1 07, 108 Darwin 121, 135, 230, 239,

280 Davis, 22

De Largie, Senator Hugh 22 Denman 190, 191 Derby 172, 174, 239 Dethridge Royal

Commission 62-63 Dethridge, Justice G J 79,

84 Devonport 25, 48, 124,

196,207 Devonshire 158 Dimboola 54, 56

Disher, Norma 162 Dixon, Charles 226 Dixon, Owen 115 Dixon, R 215 Doblo, C 120 Docker, Norm 147, 199, 214, 219, 222, 229, 232, 235, 241, 242, 248, 249,

Colebatch, Premier 56 Collings, Vi 163 Collins, Bob 280 Colrain, James 186, 187, 188 Comber, Greg 273, 276, 277,278,285,286 Connors, Howard I 5 7 Cook, OW /09 Cook, Peter 280

Duggan, 157

Cooktown 23, 94, 239

Duhig, Dr J V 195

Coombs, John 252, 253, 273,277,280,284,289, 290,293 Coonihan, Noel 215 Corben, V J 66 Court, Ian 273,274, 279 Craig, Colin 185

257-258, 260,278,288, 289 Donelly, Bill 230 Donovan, Jim 219, 271,

273,289 Dorset, Leslie 166 Druitt, Harry 244 Duffy, Eddy 91

E

Elliot, E V 193

106, 151, 280

George Washington 122 Geraghty, Pat 284 Geraldton 25, 73, 79, 207, 249, 280

Germany 19, 41-42, 50

Eurypides, $.S. 29

Gilday, Tommy 285

Evans, Peter 273 Evatt, Clive Jnr 212 Evatt, Dr H V 88, 129, 130, 144, 168, 172

Gladstone 94

F Farthing, Bruce 91 Ferguson, Alan 226 Ferguson, Ron 285 Ferrer, W 289 Fiji 19,236 Finlay, A 109, I 26, 289 Fisher, Andrew 22, 38, 40 Fitzgibbon, Charlie 196, 199, 200, 202-207, 212-216, 218,221,222, 229, 232, 235,238, 241,

Glynn, Sonny 162, 163, 164 Goddard, Joe 87 Goldstein, Dr 185 Goondi 239

Gordon, "Flash" 252 Gordon, Sir Thomas I 15 Gore, Father Brian 235 Goss, George 189 Gotsis, George 24 3 Gould, Bob 257 Gow, Keith 162 Grahame, A 134 Grahame, Pat 163 Gray, George 87 Green, Goldie 22 I

245,246,248,251,252, 254, 255-257, 288, 289, 294

Fitzgibbon, Nancy 203 Ford, Bill "Nipper" 123, 134

H Hackett, Dick 189, 244 Halfpenny, John 251 Hanlon, 135, 136 Hannan see Nagel Han.sscn, Jack 226 Harrison, S T JO

Forde, Frank 121, 123 Foster, Justice A W 130 Foster, N K 240

Harvey, W 124

France 19, 50, 141, 262

Hassen, Jack 91

Frances Walker 2 Franklin. Jack 94 Fraser, Malcolm 238, 240.

Hawke. Bob 231,232.238. 280. 181, 254-Z55. 256.

249, 258

Freeman, Jcwey 213 Fremantle 10, 16,19, 25, 42,46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54-58, 71, 73, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 90, 92, 96, 106, 170, 179, 180, 215, 224, 226, 228, 247, 248, 249, 278, 291 Fry, R 97 Fulton, Arch 289

259, 260, 266, 269, 274

Hayes, Harry 91 Healy, Betty 142, 160 Healy. Evelyn 163

Healy, Jim 88, 101-199 passim, 200, 202, 215.

257. 262, 289 Heidke, Max 184 Heidtman, Ina 163, 164, 237, 243 Herbert 22 Hewitt, J M 158

Higgins, Justice Henry 36,

East Timor 235 Edith burgh 239 Edwards, George 166 Edwards, Thomas 57, 58, 66

Geelong 48, 57, 79, 80, 97,

G Gallagher, Justice F H 210,

216 Garber, Jack 217 Gardner, Bill 79

37, 39, 40, 52.62, 63 Higgs, Senator William 22 Hillier, Lew 215, 241 Hills, John 253, 273

Hills, 1fom 79, 80, 95, 100,

220 101,110,178 Hobart 11, 23. 36, 39, 43, 73, 95, 137, 186-194, 207,288 Hobson's Bay 34 Hodgeson, Ivan 262 Hogan, Premier E J 84, 88 Holt, Harold 109, 151, 155, 158, 174, 175. 180, 181,

185 Hong Kong 236 Hoolihan, Paul 271 Hortin, Nan 162 Hotel Burlington 179 Houtman 218 Howard, John 292 Hughes, William Morris 17-18,21,22,23.24, 25,26.31,32,34, 35, 36,37,38,39,40-44, 46,47. 48, 52, 54, 59, 89, 111, 289, 292 Hursey, Denis 186, 189 Hursey, Frank 186, 187, 189, 192, 193, 288

I lndo--China see Viernam Indonesia 127, 130, 145, 216,236 Inkster, Ron 247, 248 lnnisfail 66, 89, 94, 133, 239 Isaacs, Simon "Sammy" 138 Isaacs, Sir Isaac 108 Isaksen, Neville 166 Israelite Bay 46

Italy 262

J James, Peter 283, 285 Japan 104-109, 141, 272 Jard, Harry 226 Jeparit 218 Jerger, Father 60 Joblin, Syd 185 Jobling, Francis 166 Johnson, Dr Samuel 132 Jones, Syd 214 Julius, Max 135 K Karlsruhe 16 Keating, Paul 259 Kelberg, John 17

Index Kelcy, Bill 272, 286, 287 Kempton, Graham 247 Kenny, Jim 202 Kent, Bill 285 Kernot, Professor 9 King Island 174 King, Carl 244 King, Martin Luther 208 Kirby, Justice RC 130, 136, 137, 147, 148 Korea 143, 158, 236 L Lang, Jack 91 Langley, Reverend JD 16, 17 Lashwood, Hal 179 Latham, Attorney-General JG 90, 92 Launceston 11, 25, 124, 203, 239 Lawrie, Bob 285 Laws, John 264 Lawson, J N 110 Lebanon 235 Lenane, Leo 183, 203, 241, 266,289 Leonard, Jerry 91 Levy, Jock 162 Lewis, Essingt:on 107 Lewis, Leon I 62 Lismore 25, 73 Lockwood, Rupert 94, 130, 165,266 London 11, 106, 143 Lonergan, Jack 109, 134, 138,141,289 Longford, Raymond 162 Lucinda 66, 89,94, 133, 196, 239 Luxcon, Charlie 240 Lyne, Premier W J 17 Lyon, Les 221 Lyons, Joe 92, 94, 104, 106, 108

M MacArthur, General 113 Mack, Reg 22 J Mackay 25, 52,53,68,94, 103, 147, 151, 164, 195, 196,239,280 Mahia 133 Malaya 143, 236 Malcolm, Fred 11 7

Manning, Brian 230 Mannix, Daniel 60 Manski, Kevin 230 Maryborough 25, 68, 94, 239 Mather, W 97, 289 Maxwell, Ron 96, 148, 184 McAlister, Reg 242 McCabe, M 82 McCool, Ned 221 McCormick, Ted 221 McCriscal, T 50 McDowell, H 289 McFarlane, Ian 284, 285 Mciver, Sandy 88, 116, 165 McKechnie, Alec 285 McKeon, Gus 91 McMahon, William 202, 204,206,208,212,213 McNamara, Vin 79 McNaughton award 65, 66 McNeill, Jim 94 McNeill, W 42 McPherson, Don 59 McPhillips, Jack 136 McPhillips, Perce l 77 McQueen report 119-120, 132 McReady, C 134 Melbourne passim Flinders Street 86, 100 see also Port Melbourne Menzies, R G 107, 108, 110, Ill, ll5, 125, 130, 132, 133, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 153, 158, 165, 166, 170, 200, 202, 244, 257, 292 Mildura 178 Miller, Alan 243 Millward, Clem 163 Mineroo50 Moa Island 226 Moncrieff, Gladys 118 Monk, Albert 157, 158, 181, 185, 202 Mooney report 113 Moore, Sir John 258, 266 Moran, Stan 117, 132, 138, 159, 166,178,212,289 Morison, Tony 285, 286 Moricy, Jiu 247 Morley, J K 120 Morris, Joe 22, 23, 35, 38, 55, 59,60,62, 63, 75,

221

Index 82, 289 Morris, Peter 260, 269, 294 Morrison, D V 131 Morrison, John 99, LOO, 111 Morrow, Bill 191 Mortimer, R 289 Moscow I 70, 188 Mountbatten, Lord Louis 130 Mourilyan 68, 239 Moynihan, Arthur 285 Mulanbinba 187 Mullins, Barney 115 Munro, Matt 138, 159, 237, 289 Munro, W G 148 Murphy, Joe 94 Mururoa Atoll 216 Muscat, Bill 285 Muscoota 55

N Nagel, Jim 87, 88 Neaves, Harold "Nipper" 188 Neilson, Duke 157 Nelson, Tom 44, 117, 118, 120, 126, 134, 138, 159, 161, 163, 164, 170, 179, 199, 215, 237, 244, 289,

293 New South Wales 15, 17, 18, 19, 26, 35, 48, 52, 64, 73, 82, 91, 95, 126, 135, 213, 226, 250, 256, 257,262,285 New Zealand 11, 19, 26, 36, 37, 95,127,143, 150, 151, 152, 153, 158, 161, 174, 200, 235, 262, 272, 274, 289 Newcastle 6, 8, 11, 16, 18, 25, 35,37, 42, 53,66, 73, 80, 82, 89, 93, 110, I 12, 123, 124, 224, 232, 256, 278 Nickless, Mayne 262 Niemeyer, Sir Ouo 91 Nixon, "Curly" 230 Norrhern Territory 168

0 O'Brien, Gerald 240 O'Connell, Jack 115

O'Keefc, DJ 23 O'Leary, Mick 247, 290 O'Neil, Mick 289 O'Shea, Clarie 224, 230 Ogden, A 109, 289 Onslow 172 Orient Hotel 3, 4 Orient, S.S. 24 Ovens, "Little Boots" 8 7 Ovens, Alan "Boots" 87, 122 Ovens, Harry 87 Ovens, Joe 87

-Sandridge 7, 10 Port Moresby 235 Port Phillip 7, 8, 11, 16,22, 23,25,34,37,41,42, 52,59, 79, 80, 84, 88 Port Pirie 11, 25,48, 52, 72, 82, 207, 288 Port Wellington 157

Power, Mick 91 Powers, Justice Charles 63,

64 Prescott, George 196 Price, Colonel Tom 13 Prince's Pier 86

p

Princess of Tasmania 196

Packer, Sir Frank I 70 Page, Earle 47, 68 Pakistan 23 5 Papaconstuntinos, Tony 284, 290 Papua New Guinea 235, 242 Patchett, Bob 285 Paterson, Fred 120, 135 Paul, Mick 289 Paul, Wally 289 Petrov Commission 165-167 Petrov, Vladimir 165 Pidcock, John 277, 285,

Pyront 117, 173

293 Piper, Justice H D 115, 131 Point Samson l 72 Polly Woodside 81

Poole, Dick 247 Port Adelaide 6, 9, 13,23, 25,63,69, 79,80,86, 89,90,93,97,98, 106, 121, 161, 170, 207, 224, 232, 240 Port Augusta 11, 25,239 Port Douglas 66, 68, 94, 196,239 Port Halifax 151, 152, 158 Port Hcdland l 72 Port Huon 239 Port Jackson 234, 250 Port Kembla 80, 95, 104-109, 124, 139, 142, 152, 170, 204, 212,215, 218, 224, 278 Port Lincoln 207 Port Melbourne 7, 11, 34, 85, 82 -Bay Street 7

Q Queensland 10, 12, 13, 22, 25, 26,35, 36, 48, 65-72, 77, 79,80,82, 84, 90, 93,94, 109, 110, 121, 135, 147, 156, 157, 158, 171, 185, 195, 196,

207,226 R

Radnor 166 Reid, Alan 198 Renton, Bill 56, 5 7, 58 Rescan, Sammy 184 Reynolds, Zoe 293 Riley 15 Roach, Ted 107, 108, 123, 126, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 147-148, 149, 150, 153, 156, 179, 199, 210, 214, 219, 289

Robeson, Paul 191 Rockhampton 13, 25, 66, 68, 94, 95. 96 Rodgers, Harry 184 Rona 81 Rose, R 134

Rotterdam 226 Rourke. Curly 221 Russia 46 see also Soviet

Union Ryan, Billy 177 Ryan, Chris 285

s Sale, Loea 242

Samuals, Neil 280 Samuel Plimsoll 7 ]

Index

222 Saunders, Harry 252 Sawyer, Ralph 163

177, 179 -Sussex Street 32, 45,

Scandinavia 19 Scullin, James Henry 89,

-Woolloomooloo 209

78, 162, 163, 197 Sykes, Hughie 209 Symes, Les 285, 293, 294

92, 94

Sharkey, Frank 252 Sharkey, Lance 136 Shaw, Rod 162, 163 Sherlock, Arthur 151 Short, Laurie 196

Singapore 50 Skinner, J 134 Slater. Vic 219, 249, 250,

290 Small, Warren 253 Smith, Don 280, 281, 285, 293

Smith, J 289 Smith, Jack 117, 123 Smith, Jock 247 Smithton 239 Souter, Harold 197, 202 South Australia 54, 90 South Coast 93, 107, 108,

219 see also Port Kembla

Soviet Union 103, 116, 134, 141, 215

Spain Z6Z Spencer, Bill 247 Spicer, Attomey-General J

T Tait Inquiry 183-186, 258, 267,274 Tait, J B 183 Tannock, Jim 282, 290 Tarrawera 225

16, 19, 22, 25, 46, 50,

284,288 Taylor, W H 97, 134 Teasel, Harry 177 Texas 227

54, 179, 180, 248, 269,

Thailand 236

Thevenard 207 Thorton, Ernie I 96 Thursday Island 94, 121, 174

Torres Strait Islands 226 Townsville 13, 27, 42, 52, 66, 68, 83, 84, 94, 108, 121, 123, 147, 148 Triabunna 239

Tucker, J B23 Tucker, Al 91 Turley, Arthur 55, 63, 72, 73, 82, 97, 98, 101, 102, 289

A 151

Turnbull, Linday 166

Strahan ZS, 73, 239 Street, Tony 240

United States 106, 113,

Sydney passim -Balmain 234

u 121, 122, 134, 136, 141, 143, 144, 195, 200, 207,

211,212,216,220,272 Urangan 126 V Van Bookove, A 169 Vanuatu 236

-Botany Bay 246, 250,

Victoria 13, 48, 54, 95

251

Vietnam 166, 213, 216, 220,218 Vincent, Frank 221 Viner, Ian

--Circular Quay 2, I 3, 20,32,51 -Darling Harbour 20, 28, 29,91 -Domain 50, 190 -Hunter Street 124 -King Street 138, 197 -Leichhardt 117, 166,

Walsh, "Bunna" 252

Walsh, PT97 Wamambool 239 Watkins, D 22 Watson, Fred 219 Waugh, G134 Webber, C 134 Webber, Ian 262 Welshpool 239 Western Australia 3, 10,

Tasmania 13, 26, 100, 174,

Stanley 25, 280, 239 Steele, Jim 284 Stewart, J 23

Stuart, Lex 81 Sullivan, Alex 177 Supple, Tom 203, 267, 289 Swayn, Geoff 151. 221, 222,252, 289 Sweden 132

Wallington, Maurie 166, 184,210,214 Walsh Bay 20, 74

w Walk.er, Ray 226 Wallaroo 22, 25, 174, 207 Wallington, Gladys 184

279,285,291 Westernport 239 Whitfield, Bob 102, 109, 289 Whitlam, Gough 220, 240, 293

Whittaker, Alan 87, 88 Wide Bay 22 Williams, Garvin 226 Williams, Joan 173 Williamstown 11, 48, 158 Willis, Ralph 269,272 Wilson, Frank 166 Wollongong 25, 73, 108

Woods, J 43, 55, 289 Woodward Inquiry 211-213, 258 Woodward, A E 2l I, 220 Wyndham I 72, 239 y Young, Charlie 134, 148, 165, 221, 289 Young, Graham 285, 286 Young, J "Dutchy" 134,

141, 159, 179,244,289