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.