BY SUE BOLTON
At 2.30pm on
August 7, Green Left Weekly received an email from Taylor &
Scott, lawyers acting on behalf of Australian Manufacturing Workers Union
national secretary Doug Cameron, in which they demanded that an article
in GLW #502 entitled “Cameron strips AMWU state branches of power”
be removed from the GLW web site by 10am on August 8, and that a
retraction and apology be published on the web site.
The email implied that failure to comply could lead to legal action
being taken.
GLW editor Doug Lorimer responded, sending an email to the AMWU
offering Cameron the opportunity to have a similar length article published
in the newspaper.
On August 12, GLW received an email response from Taylor &
Scott lawyer Lachlan Riches, which acknowledged GLW's offer, but
simply repeated the initial demands.
The article which Cameron, via his lawyers, has objected to reports
on some of the key decisions of the AMWU national conference, held in Sydney
on July 21-25. To my knowledge, this article is the only public account
of the outcome of this conference.
Taylor & Scott complain that the article makes a number of “blatantly
false statements”. The following is a list of the main points which their
clients claim to be false, and GLW's response.
They write: “Rule changes adopted by the national conference do not
`strip decision-making power from state branches and shift it to the national
council and the national secretary, currently Doug Cameron'… It is demonstrably,
and in our clients' views mischievously, untrue to claim that, following
national conference resolutions, `all decisions of all union bodies, including
state councils and state conferences, are now subject to approval by the
national council. (Previously the national council could only overturn
decisions if they breached certain rules.)'”
Rule 6A
The AMWU national conference adopted a new Rule 6A, entitled “Interpretation
Rule as to Powers of State Officials, State Conferences and State Councils”,
which states: “The powers and duties allocated to state officials, state
conferences and state councils under rules 22, 24, 26, 27 and 29 must only
be exercised in accordance with the rules and with all decisions or policies
affecting the exercise of those powers and duties, adopted by national
conference or national council.”
It further states: “Where, in the opinion of the national conference
or national council, the powers and duties described in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this sub-rule, have not been exercised in accordance with these
rules, including this rule, or the decisions of policies of national conference
or national council, national conference or national council may: (i) resolve
that any powers exercised or decisions made under rules 22, 24, 26, 27
and 29 are void and of no effect… (iii) resolve to exercise all or any
of the powers itself or to give such directions affecting the exercise
of these powers or the performance of those duties as national conference
or national council considers appropriate.”
Prior to the adoption of this new rule, state branches had to comply
with and work within the policies of the union. Now, Rule 6A binds state
branches to comply with all decisions of the national council, as well
as union policies.
Rule 6A means that any decision or policy which is made by a state official,
state council or state conference, can be nullified but also supplanted
by a different decision by the national council.
A significant difference between state councils, state conferences and
the national council is that these state decision-making bodies involve
rank-and-file workers and have established processes to notify delegates
in advance of meetings being called and ensuring that agendas are circulated
in advance of meetings. In contrast, the AMWU national council consists
of around 28 full-time, paid officials, and they can call a meeting at
a moment's notice and override the democratic processes of the elected
state bodies of the union.
The only limitation on the application of Rule 6A is that it doesn't
apply to the divisional conferences of the printing, food and confectionary,
vehicle, technical and supervisory or metals divisions. This was a last-minute
amendment moved by Cameron, once he knew that the printing division was
likely to use its powers of veto against Rule 6A.
Taylor & Scott write that it is false to say “Mr Cameron has engaged
in `harassment' in relation to the decision of the national council of
the AMWU to suspend Mr Johnston `despite the alleged victim denying, now
in a statutory declaration, that the incident ever took place'… There is
no such statutory declaration.”
This refers to the fact that, on July 9, the AMWU national council suspended
Victorian branch secretary Craig Johnston on an allegation of “gross misconduct”
pending an internal union inquiry on the matter. Johnston strongly denies
the allegation.
Contrary to the claim by Cameron's lawyers, a statutory declaration
signed by the alleged victim was tabled in the Federal Court by Johnston
in a bid to be reinstated.
The statutory declaration stated that: “I state categorically that I
do not wish those charges to be heard by the national council or any other
body of the AMWU. I will not cooperate with any such hearing and I will
not attend or give evidence at any such hearing.
“I also withdraw all statements made to Mr Riordan's inquiry or any
other official of the AMWU. Those statements were made under unfair pressure
from the national president… I am of the firm and clear belief that this
whole episode is part of a political campaign to get rid of Craig Johnston.”
In his interim decision, Justice Mark Weinberg noted that “there is
evidence that [AMWU national president Julius Roe] offered what might be
regarded as `concessions' to the complainant in order to persuade her,
as he ultimately did, to give evidence before national council.”
Veto power
Taylor & Scott claim “It is demonstrably, and in our clients' views
mischievously, untrue to claim that, following national conference resolutions:
`The different divisions of the union — printing, vehicle builders, food
and confectionary and technical and supervisory — no longer have the power
of veto over rules whose effect is broader than that division'.”
The veto rules only apply to the printing and the food-confectionary
divisions. The veto rule was negotiated by the former printing, food preservers
and confectionary workers unions when they amalgamated into the much larger
AMWU. The technical and supervisory division never negotiated such a veto
rule when its union amalgamated with the AMWU. The vehicle division also
no longer has such a veto rule.
At the moment the veto rule means that if the printing or food and confectionary
divisions don't specifically endorse a matter that affects them within
30 days after the conference decision, then the rule lapses.
The scope of the veto rule is another issue entirely. The food division
can veto any rule that specifically affects it. The printing division's
veto rule has always been understood to be a lot broader, and to include
any rule change which affects the printing division directly or indirectly.
However, at the national conference, Cameron told the delegates that
he had new legal advice to indicate that divisions could only veto rule
changes which specifically affected them.
It is only at the last couple of national conferences that divisions
have sought to exercise their right to veto rule changes, so the interpretation
of the veto rule is only being debated now.
Cameron's lawyers object to the claim that “Mr Cameron or the AMWU `rammed
through in contravention of union rules' decisions of the food and confectionary
division `election procedure'.” As with the veto rule, the proportionality
of voting wasn't an issue before the union became highly factionalised.
It had previously been understood that food and confectionary division
delegates exercised votes in proportion to membership numbers.
At the July 21-25 national conference, however, food and confectionary
division delegates were told that their votes were based on “one person,
one vote”, and were not proportional to the number of members in each state
branch.
This resulted in the bizarre situation where the South Australian branch
of the food and confectionary division, which has around 112 members, got
an equal number of votes to the Victorian branch, which has around 6000
members.
State branch funding
Taylor & Scott dispute
GLW's statement that “Branches at odds
with Cameron's faction are frequently starved of resources”. The AMWU has
totally centralised funding, with the national office allocating resources
to the branches. This means that state branches don't have the latitude
to decide to put on an extra organiser.
According to AMWU national industrial officer Denis Matson, you can
get an idea of whether resources are being shared equitably by the membership
numbers and the number of on-the-ground officials in branches and divisions.
Matson told GLW that the printing division in NSW has been unpopular
with the national office for longer than the printing division in Victoria.
Although the NSW printing division branch brings in around the same amount
of membership money as the Victorian branch does, the NSW branch only has
four officials, compared to the Victorian branch's seven officials.
“It's not even run on actual budget figures. It's run on projections
which are calculated out of the AMWU national office. The idea is you have
to work within your budget. Even if you are within your budget, as people
have found out recently, if the projection is that you're going to lose
members over a certain period of time and you may not be able to sustain
a position, then that position will be wiped out, unless you can convince
national council, which is totally dominated by Doug Cameron's cronies,
that some other solution is possible, then you get what Doug gives you.”
Cameron's lawyers claim: “There is no truth in the statement attributed
to Mr Wisniewski that: `If anyone raised anything which Cameron wasn't
happy with, then Cameron would vilify them and rule them out of order'.”
The quoted statement is Victorian delegate Paul Wisniewski's personal comment
on his impression of the conference. Other delegates made similar comments.
No doubt Cameron and his allies would have a different impression of the
conference.
Taylor & Scott claim that GLW's comment that “Australian
Industries Group chief executive Bob Herbert has said that he would prefer
Cameron to be running the next industrial campaign” is false.
In the July 2 issue of Business Review Weekly, Herbert complained
that “When you compare working days lost between each state for every month
since October 1997, Victoria has the worst record: nearly double the working
days lost each month in the next worse state — New South Wales… Make no
mistake, (militant unionism) is driving investment away from Victoria”.
The militant unionism which Herbert was referring to was the influence
of the militant Workers First leadership of the Victorian branch of the
AMWU. Herbert said: “Their banner `workers first' is a fraud… This, I believe,
is a situation that the trade union movement itself must address, and address
decisively. If it does not, it limits its credibility in arguing against
tougher compliance measures.”
When the AMWU national council suspended Johnston from the position
of AMWU state secretary, Herbert was reported in the July 10 Australian
as welcoming moves by the AMWU to address Johnston's “damaging” behaviour.
He said: “It's been diabolical for the processes of good industrial relations
how the Workers First people have behaved.” Herbert has not made any similar
criticisms of Doug Cameron and his supporters in the AMWU.
From Green Left Weekly, August 21, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
