Commemorating 30 Years of RTBU by Rail, Tram & Bus Union Australia

COMMEMORATING THIRTY YEARS OF THE RTBU

Written by Peter O’Connor with Stewart Prins

Foreword By Roger Jowett

FOREWORD

generation ago, members of four transport unions voted decisively to establish a new union for the rail, tram and bus industries. It brought together unions who have been at the heart of Australian unionism for more than a century. The new union was based on several principles, the core of which was the involvement of the membership and harnessing their collective power. The last 30 years have been a rollercoaster ride for our members. The RTBU has been a key union in the tumultuous industrial conflicts of the era, including the Patrick’s waterfront dispute and the Hunter Valley coal dispute. Solidarity in struggle is not new for our union and its predecessors. The RTBU throughout its existence has been buffeted and challenged by privatisation, deregulation and contracting-out. Job security, wages and conditions have been challenged by employers and governments. A succession of federal governments has sought to undermine and weaken unions by pursuing workplace industrial laws that undermined collective bargaining and promoted individual workplace agreements without union involvement. RTBU industrial campaigns based on full member participation were able to reverse these setbacks.

The RTBU has been able to turn around several privatisations, including TasRail and the urban rail and light rail system in South Australia. The tide is turning as the impacts of lower service levels, attacks on wages and conditions and reduced staff levels have angered the public and have led to change. The collective political strength of the RTBU has had a major impact.

Amalgamation affects members in many ways, including through union culture. Our history is as a union that fights for its members, which takes many forms. The murder of a bus member in the workplace in Brisbane in 2016 brought an outpouring of grief amongst public transport workers across Australia. It spoke to the daily realities faced by frontline workers and to the absolute necessity of ongoing campaigning for workplace safety and stronger occupational health and safety laws. The RTBU has one of the highest union membership levels of any industry in Australia. However, our struggles do not take place in a vacuum. The union movement has declined considerably in recent decades. All unionists have a role to play in strengthening our movement by encouraging young workers to join unions, by outlawing wage theft as a business model, by ensuring the same rate for the same job, and by decent, legally enforceable minimums for gig economy workers – the most vulnerable and exploited workers in Australia. This year also marks the 30th anniversary of the enterprise bargaining system. The RTBU membership has been successful in pursuing these agreements, but the systems have fallen into disrepute. The number of workers covered by these agreements has shrunk dramatically. Australian workers have suffered wages stagnation for more than a decade, with real living standards falling significantly in the last two years as inflation has escalated. New changes to industrial law introduced by the federal Labor Government offer the opportunity for multi-employer bargaining and for unions to exercise their collective strength to reverse this decline. Only

a fully informed and involved membership can make change happen.. Every generation of workers has new societal challenges. Our era must confront the climatic effects of global warming. The science is clear, and our own practical experiences of the floods and fires that have ravaged Australia in recent years are a bellwether for humanity’s collective future. For our industry, it poses both threats and promises. A significant number of our members are employed in Australia’s coal supply chain, where dramatic change will occur. A just transition is essential for these members and for all coal workers. And since transport accounts for more than 20 percent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, public transport and rail freight can play an enhanced role in the nation’s journey to net-zero emissions. Since the formation of the RTBU, the world has changed dramatically. A major war is now engulfing Europe for the first time in more than 70 years. The threat of a calamitous escalation of geopolitical rivalries between the United States and China has major implications for all Australians. And new technologies – including artificial intelligence – will continue to provide challenges for all working people, as will the campaign for a shorter working week. An analysis of our union’s history reveals the resilience and fighting spirit of the RTBU membership. This will help to lay the foundations for addressing our many future challenges. The past we inherit. The future we build together. Roger Jowett

AUTHORS’ NOTES

his booklet has been compiled to mark the thirtieth anniversary of the amalgamation of the Australian Railways Union (ARU), the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen (AFULE), the Australian Tramway and Motor Omnibus Employees’ Association (ATMOEA) and the National Union of Rail Workers of Australia (NURWA), to form what we now know as the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU). It is also an attempt to provide an historical account of the amalgamation process for future students of the union and the industry. It is a joint project of the RTBU National Office and the RTBU NSW Branch. As with all such accounts, it is incomplete and imperfect, and necessarily comes with its own biases and filters. Peter and Stewart have variously worked for the NSW Branch and National Office of the RTBU over many years, however many of the critical events in this story occurred prior to our involvement in the union. Given these limitations, we have endeavoured to draw on a variety of sources and perspectives to provide some balance to this account. Our basic thesis has been that, unlike many other amalgamations at the time, which were brokered along ideological or political lines, and were not always comfortable fits with the industries they represented, the RTBU amalgamation was successful in bringing together an all-grades industry union of the main rail, tram and bus unions. While there were discussions with other transport unions, and it may be argued that perhaps other potential partners could have been added to the final amalgamation, what was achieved was a union that was representative of the industry at the time, and was well-placed to further the influence and interests of the industry and its members. The booklet argues that major changes

in the industry, technology, the workforce and the political environment, rendered the amalgamation a necessary development for the healthy survival of the unions involved. The path to amalgamation was not without its tensions and some misgivings. While there was no formal opposition campaign to the amalgamation, there were certainly pockets of disquiet and resistance. Given that the amalgamation managed to overcome most major hurdles, the transition from the disparate unions to the one new union was relatively seamless. To address the concerns around larger unions ‘taking over’ (and protecting the identity, culture and autonomy of the individual unions being lost in the process), considerable effort and attention was directed at not merging existing unions, but rather building a new, bigger, more effective industry union from the outset, where the former unions would be properly represented in the rules and the governing structures. Predictably, there were teething problems with some aspects of the new RTBU, and over time there have been adjustments and rule changes to address these and new challenges. We argue that old loyalties to the original unions lived on beyond the amalgamation, and continue to some extent, some thirty years on. However, while many of these groupings will rightly continue to celebrate and acknowledge their proud histories, with time the focus is increasingly on building and maintaining one strong, united industry union - a union that has proven itself to be an influential advocate and a strong voice for all rail, tram and bus workers. The past thirty years have seen the amalgamation settle into a reasonably united, coherent organisation

that has been able to face continuing major challenges in society and the industry. Post-amalgamation, the industrial relations policies and laws of the Federal Liberal-Coalition Government under John Howard, the strong pushes for privatisation and corporatisation, the ongoing changes to technology and work practices in the industry, and the constant attacks on unions, have all posed serious threats for the new union. The RTBU was at the forefront of many of the social and industrial campaigns that arose from these challenges, and managed to weather these storms, as well as win substantial victories along the way. We anticipate that the next thirty years will bring more of the same issues, as well as its own unique circumstances. The amalgamation of 1993 has provided a solid foundation from which the modern RTBU can respond flexibly and creatively to these future challenges. We would like to acknowledge and offer thanks to those past members and officers who gave generously of their time to assist this project. In particular, we acknowledge the invaluable assistance and resources provided by Roger Jowett, who was the ARU National Secretary prior to the amalgamation, and oversaw the intricacies of brokering the amalgamation, and who became the inaugural RTBU National Secretary, guiding the amalgamated union through its first ten years. Peter O’Connor & Stewart Prins

1. BACKGROUND TO THE AMALGAMATING UNIONS

he current Rail, Tram & Bus Union was formed on 1 March 1993 when the Australian Railways Union (ARU) merged with the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen (AFULE); the Australian Tramway & Motor Omnibus Employees’ Association (ATMOEA), and the National Union of Rail Workers of Australia (NURWA), to form the Australian Rail Tram & Bus Industry Union. While this was and remains the formal name of the amalgamated union, it operated for its first few years as the Public Transport Union (PTU), before changing to the RTBU. The current union continues a long and proud history of unionism spanning most of the history of the rail and public transport industries in Australia.

the railways and public transport there have been attempts at forming unions and associations to protect collective interests. Formalised rail unions, in particular, first starting developing in the 1860s and 1870s. In fact, it is generally accepted that the first railway workers’ union in the world was formed in Victoria in 1861.

Victorian Railway Unions

For as long as workers have been employed on

For most of the 19th century, the existence of separate craft unions for employees in the Victorian railways was the norm, with train drivers and crew, signalmen, shunters, station masters, staff and rail labourers all organised into different unions based on their grade of work. That owed a great deal to the hierarchical nature

of employment on the railways, with differences being especially pronounced between locomotive drivers, station staff and clerks, and “unskilled” workers. That invariably led to different scales of pay and complex bargaining for different groups of workers, and convinced many of the need for an industry-wide union. The first attempt at a united union occurred in 1884, when rail labourers formed an all-grades Mutual Services Association.1 Labourers were the lowestpaid workers in the railways and hence the most committed to the benefits of an industry-wide union, but entrenched divisions between grades of workers made most other rail employees hesitant to join. The Association renamed itself the Amalgamated Society of Railway Employees (ASRE) in 1900. With the onset of the 1890s Depression, and its effects upon their wages and security of work, the attitude of rail employees towards an industry-wide union began to shift. In 1903, the government of conservative Premier William Irvine sought to stifle the electoral threat of rail workers’ anger at pay cuts by passing of the Separate Representation Act. The Act barred railway employees from voting in their own electorates, instead being allotted two separate seats in State Parliament’s lower house. The ensuing campaign to repeal the Act galvanised rail workers’ commitment to unionism and bolstered the ASRE’s ranks. In July 1911, after a ballot of members on the question of an industry-wide union which resulted in a strongly affirmative opinion, the ASRE and all other craft unions in the railways, with the exception of the locomotive drivers’ association, combined to form the Victorian Railways Union (VRU).

Victorian railway workers on the St Kilda-Brighton electric tramway, 1922.

Eddie Butler-Bowden. In the Service? A history of the Victorian railway workers and their union (Melbourne: Hyland House, 1991).

from Victoria, NSW and South Australia to form the Federated Railway Locomotive Enginemen’s Association of Australasia.

The VRU supported the foundation of the Victorian Labour College in 1917, providing rooms for them to use. The VRU later became the Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union (ARU) when railways unions from each state and territory unified nationally in 1921. The VRU’s first Secretary was Frank Hyett, an ardent socialist who, despite lacking a personal background in the railways, quickly established himself as an able and dedicated organiser for the union, proving highly effective in uniting the different associations and craft unions into the VRU. The Gazette, which was the newspaper of the VRU, and later the Victorian branch of the ARU, for nearly a century, carried the motto “Work and vote for Socialism”.2

The Australian Tramways Employees Union (ATEU, later to become the Australian Tramways and Motor Omnibus Employees Association, or ATMOEA) was formed in 1910, and was a pivotal player in one of the defining industrial disputes of early 20th century Australia that took place in Brisbane just two years later. The Brisbane Tramways were, at the time, owned by the General Electric Corporation. The owners refused to negotiate wages and conditions with the peak union body at the time, and the tensions between workers and the company escalated when union members wore ATEU badges to work.

NSW Railway Unions During the first decade of the NSW railways there were a number of small sectional and craft unions in existence, variously covering guards, drivers, perway and workshops. For example, there were unsuccessful attempts to form train drivers’ unions in Sydney and Goulburn as early as 1871, eventually establishing the Locomotive Enginedrivers, Firemen & Cleaners Association. Traffic Branch employees were organised from the early 1880s, with the NSW Guards and Shunters Association being formed in 1883, and the NSW Signalmen’s Union in 1885. Others included the Railway Workers & General Labourers Association, formed in 1908. Many of the smaller unions were brought together under the umbrella of the Amalgamated Railways and Tramways Service Association (ARTSA) that was formed in 1886. 2

RTBU Victoria: Timeline of union history – https://www.rtbuvic. com.au/wp-content/uploads/RTBU-history-timeline.jpg

State tramway unions joined forces in 1914, forming what became known as ATMOEA.

State Tramways Employees Associations formed the Australian Tramway Employees’ Association in 1914, later changing its name to the Australian Tramway & Motor Omnibus Employees’ Association. All of the major rail and tram unions were deregistered for their involvement in the 1917 General Strike, and were not re-registered until the 1920s. In this time, the government assisted the establishment of a number of ‘loyalist’ unions to replace the more militant ones.

Other early rail and public transport unions In Queensland, the Queensland Locomotive Enginemen Firemen & Cleaners’ Association formed in 1891. In 1900, it federated with Associations

The badge-wearing unionists were sacked, sparking a march of 10,000 tramway workers to Brisbane Trades Hall, a huge mass meeting in what is now King George Square. A General Strike Committee was formed, and unionists across Brisbane stopped work on 30 January 1912 in a General Strike that brought the entire city to a standstill. The Strike Committee became a de facto government, determining what work could and could not be undertaken in Brisbane. For a brief time, Brisbane’s workers had virtually taken all power in the city into their hands. The Brisbane General Strike turned violent on 2 February, when baton-wielding police rushed protesting unionists. The striking unionists were sacked, and were not reinstated to their jobs until 1922 when the Queensland State Government took control of tramway operations.

In South Australia, rail unions were also an early feature of life. In 1873 workers at the governmentowned South Australian Railways became among the first to achieve a 48-hour working week.3 And in 1876 the colonial South Australian Government became the first part of the British Empire, outside of Britain itself, to legally recognise trade unions.4 Attempts were made to form a locomotive enginemen’s union in 1876 and 1880, but both failed due to conflict between drivers and firemen. A successful union was finally formed in 1886.5 In Western Australia, the West Australian Locomotive Engine Drivers’ Firemen’s and Cleaners’ Union (WALEDF&CU) was formed in 1898. The following year, a union for ‘non-footplate’ rail workers - the Western Australian Government Railways (WAGR) Association - was formed. This union subsequently became the WA Amalgamated Society of Rail Employees (WAASRE)6. The Perth Electric Tramways Industrial Union of Workers was then established 1901, and in 1902 the Western Australian State Government passed laws to give legal recognition to the new unions. Meanwhile, in Tasmania the development of a number

‘Long campaign for an 8-hour workday in South Australia; individual workplace gains, with 1873 a breakthrough’, in Adelaide AZ – see https://adelaideaz.com/articles/campaign-for-eighthour-workday-in-19th-century-south-australia-makes-gradualgains-with-1873-a-breakthrough

‘South Australia unions first legalised in empire outside Britain in 1876; United Trades & Labor Council formed in 1884’, in Adelaide AZ – see https://adelaideaz.com/articles/south-australia-unionsfirst-to-be-legalised-outside-britain-in-1876--united-trades-laborcouncil-formed-1884

Bobbie Oliver, The Locomotive Enginemen: A history of the West Australian Locomotive Engine Drivers’, Firemen’s and Cleaners’ Union, (Perth: University of Western Australia; 2019), p27.

IBID, p31.

of privately-funded and owned railways also led to interest in the establishment of trade unions for railway and transport workers. A Tasmanian Branch of the AFULE was up and running by the early 1900s, along with other unions including the Tasmanian Railways Traffic Association and the Tasmanian Government Railway Employees Association. The Tasmanian AFULE and the Tasmanian Railways Traffic Association rejected a proposed amalgamation with the ARU in 1921.

Opportunities and Obstacles to Rail Unionism The growth of the railways was not an automatic advantage or boon to the development of mass rail unions. In addition to hostility from employers and media there were also the sectional divisions of the industry and geography to contend with. While some of the early developments were along sectional, craft or occupational (and even geographic) lines, this provided its own barriers. The employment of substantial numbers in central locations such as workshops, and concentrations in metropolitan and large rural centres, was not replicated in other sectors of the industry, often with rail workers scattered in relatively small and isolated groups throughout the country areas. Similarly, the various work groups seldom had the opportunity to come into contact with other rail workers. For example, a perway gang in the west of the state was not likely to come into contact with many other perway workers, let alone drivers or porters or station assistants. Mobility and communications, while assisting some occupations and enhancing their ability to meet with

other members in remote locations – such as drivers and guards whose jobs were ‘mobile’, were more restricted for others. There was also shift irregularity and different rostering preventing many workers from meeting with their colleagues and discussing their grievances. In this context, collective social and public events such as the railway picnic, public meetings, dances and sporting activities played an important role in bringing the various grades and locations together. Even the railway picnics, however, which began as early as the 1860s, were often organised on a branch or regional basis (that is, traffic branch metropolitan would have its picnic, separate to the North or West, perway would have theirs, and locomotive enginemen another again). So while these events enabled similar grades and occupations to come together from different locations, they did not not necessarily provide an exposure to a mix of occupational grades. The first mass (or all-grades) union was formed in 1886. NSW’s ARTSA was modelled on the structure and rules of the English Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, formed in 1871. The most significant key groups in the early activities were porters and lower grades of locomotive depot workers and labourers, all of whom came into contact with a cross-section of the workforce.

The Amalgamating Unions The Amalgamated Railway and Tramway Service Association (later ARU) The conditions leading to ARTSA’s formation were industrially quite explosive. For several years discontent had been mounting in relation to oppressive conditions and difficulty in gaining promotion. The

these stances. The main focus was to hold the job and establish and defend working conditions and industrial rights.

trigger came when an instruction was issued in early 1886 for all employees to pay half-fare when travelling to and from work. Previously such travel was free, and in effect amounted to a significant wage cut for many employees. A meeting was organised in March 1886, by guard J. Carillon and porters F. Cavanagh and W.F. Schey, to form themselves into an association for “mutual protection and advancement”. A provisional committee was elected which included representatives of the sectional unions and the enginemen. The association had among its key objectives the “establishment of sick, accident, orphan and superannuation funds and the founding of a convalescent home”, as well as securing “the redress of grievances, and of establishing the eight-hour day system.” The reasons for the formation of the union, Schey wrote, were primarily to address the disunity and divisiveness within the various grades of rail workers: The various classes and grades of the railway workmen were disunited and disorganised. Each particular class looked with a jealous eye at the other … and the sectionalism and petty quarrelling, with promotion being obtained in many instances by sycophancy and degrading toadyism, and the whole railway service was honeycombed by political influence. William Schey was the first Secretary of the ARTSA. He was employed as a porter at Parramatta station, having joined the Service in the 1870s. Henry Hoyle, the first ARTSA President was an assistant foreman blacksmith at Eveleigh. Schey and Hoyle were both to go on to be elected to NSW parliament, Schey in 1887 while still Secretary of ARTSA, and Hoyle after being dismissed from the service for his union activism.

Through the late 1880s, ARTSA continued to ‘politely’ criticise the English-born Chief Commissioner of the NSW Railways, Edward Eddy, while William Schey intensified attacks on Eddy from the parliament. Commissioner Eddy meanwhile became even less tolerant of railway unions and took direct action against union leaders, dismissing ARTSA President Hoyle from the railways in 1890.

ARTSA was de-registered after the 1917 General Strike, but was replaced in 1920 by the Australian Railways Union (ARU).

The rules of the NSW Amalgamated Railway and Tramway Service Association (Sydney 1886) state among their objectives: “to promote a good understanding between the various grades of the service; the better regulation of their relations; and the settlement of disputes between them by a Board of Conciliation, Arbitration or other lawful means”. In its first decade or so, ARTSA certainly did not see itself as a ‘political’ organisation or as part of any militant unionism. It was very much an ‘association’ of railwaymen. It would conduct fund-raising activities for other workers’ struggles, but remained strangely removed from organised labour. It refused to affiliate with the Sydney Trades and Labour Council, explaining (even though its Secretary was in parliament) that it “could not assist in supporting labour candidates as the union was not a political one, [and] they could not entertain any of the Council’s proposals.” While Schey and others may have been keenly class conscious and ‘political’, their members did not generally share

Eddy, however, had something of a ‘reverse Midas touch’ in his attempts to silence his union critics. Hoyle went on to become Minister for Railways in the Holman Government. Another of Commissioner Eddy’s political ‘casualties’ was J.S.T. McGowan, who Eddy dismissed for taking part in political work. McGowan later became the first Labor Premier of NSW. Political pressure and the lure and importance of the rail workers’ votes proved beneficial in securing some recognition. The previous Minister for Public Works, F.A. Wright, lost his seat in Redfern as a result of alienating railwaymen. Denied direct access to collective bargaining, ARTSA held large public meetings to air their grievances and to bring public pressure to bear. After the election of Henry Parkes in 1887, the union was given limited recognition, but was tolerated rather than fully recognised. The main focus, even when more directly involved in bargaining, was not so much on wages, but on conditions such as improvements to passes for workers, supply of uniforms and annual leave. ARTSA also established a sickness and accident fund for its members. ARTSA pursued its objectives, mostly not through direct action, but through lobbying sympathetic politicians

(in this case, directly through Schey and other former railwaymen in the parliament). ARTSA was de-registered during the 1917 General Strike. The Australian Railways Union (ARU) was registered in 1920 and replaced ARTSA as the mass rail union.

Federated Engine Drivers, Firemen and Cleaner’s Association The engine drivers’ union wasn’t received any more warmly than ARTSA. In 1902, after receiving registration through the new Industrial Relations Act 1901, the NSW Locomotive Engine Drivers, Firemen’s and Cleaner’s Association (LEDFCA) wrote to the Commissioners through their President Robert Hollis, requesting that they give the association ‘”your full recognition … and receive its correspondence, officers and delegates …” The Commissioners responded that no special recognition was required, and that under the Railways Act the Commissioners were bound and empowered to have regard to employees. “The existing privileges of Railway employees are duly guarded and provision is made for appeal … in all cases where dissatisfaction may arise.” This was at a time when once more the railways were embarking on significant retrenchment campaigns.

The Federated Engine Drivers, Firemen and Cleaners Association, and its Liberal Party supporting General Secretary Robert Hollis (from 1887 – 1913), viewed the ARTSA as too ‘aggressive’, declining overtures to amalgamate with the ‘all-grades’ union. Hollis had been involved on the executive of the English mass railway union before coming to Australia, which he viewed as failing and was a strong supporter of sectional unionism. A number of engine drivers and firemen were members

of both unions, especially in Goulburn, Bathurst and Junee. The main opposition was in Sydney where the LEDFCA outnumbered ARTSA by about ten to one. The forerunners of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen (AFULE) were state Locomotive Enginemen’s Associations of which the Victorian Locomotive Engine Drivers’ Association (formed in 1861) was the first and only continuous union. Attempts to form a South Australian Enginemen’s association failed in 1876 and 1880 due to conflict between drivers and firemen, but finally succeeded in 1886. In NSW it seems that an association was formed as early as 1871. By 1881 there were two bodies, one in Sydney and one in Goulburn, but both became dormant in that year. The idea of amalgamating Locomotive Enginemen’s’ Associations from all states was suggested at a Victorian Conference in 1886. Federation did not come to fruition until 1899-1900 when the Locomotive Engine Drivers’ & Firemens’ Associations from Victoria, NSW, South Australia and Queensland met to form the Federated Railway Locomotive Enginemen’s Association of Australasia. This body met yearly at Conference, but did not set up a Federal Division until 1920. In that year a decision of the High Court made it possible for unions covering employees in state instrumentalities to have access to the Federal Arbitration Court. In February 1921, the newly named Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen was the first such union to gain federal registration with the Court. In 1922-23, following Federal registration, successful steps were taken for the AFULE to gain coverage of locomotive enginemen working for Commonwealth railways, and the Union became truly Australia-wide.

In 1924, the AFULE decided to file a separate log of claims on each of the state employers, but the decision of the Australian Railways Union to try to establish one federal award for all railwaymen precipitated the Locomotive Enginemen into a similar case before the Federal Arbitration Court. The AFULE presented a mass of detailed evidence resulting by April 1925 in its first Federal Award binding on state instrumentalities and bringing its four Union Divisions into line industrially. By 1926 the union had changed its name to the Australian Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, only to change it back to the AFULE in 1927. After 1970, membership swelled as a result of the inclusion of members from the Commonwealth Division

Australian Tramway & Motor Omnibus Employees’ Association Formed in 1910, the Australian Tramway Employees’ Association became the Australian Tramway and Motor Omnibus Employees’ Association (AT&MOEA or ATMOEA) in 1934. When this union was deregistered in 1950 its members created, within the same year, a new union of the same name. ATMOEA rose to national prominence when it found itself at the centre of major widespread industrial unrest after the jailing of its Victorian Secretary, Clarrie O’Shea in 1969, who refused to pay penal fines incurred for striking. O’Shea had pursued a campaign of consistent industrial militancy since being elected as ATMOEA’s Victorian State Secretary in 1947 to defend and advance his members’ wages and conditions, sick leave and benefits. ATMOEA’s strikes and work stoppages incurred heavy penal fines under the penal section of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act – this legislation had been introduced by the Menzies Commonwealth

left-wing unions in Victoria in solidarity with O’Shea.7 After again refusing to pay the strike fines and turn over ATMOEA’s financial records to the Court, O’Shea was jailed by the presiding Judge, future GovernorGeneral John Kerr, for contempt of court. News of Clarrie O’Shea’s jailing triggered an immediate reaction among workers and unionists, with tens of thousands of workers walking off the job in Melbourne and every city in Australia – this action quickly snowballed into a six-day-long nationwide General Strike, the first in Australia since World War II. Huge marches took place in every Australian city demanding O’Shea’s release and the abolition of the Commonwealth anti-strike clauses, with cities including Melbourne and Hobart being virtually ground to a halt. Sentiment against the penal powers was very strong in the union movement by this time, with unions across Australia owing more than $300,000 in strike fines at the time of O’Shea’s jailing.

Clarrie O’Shea was jailed in 1969 for refusing to pay penal fines incurred for striking.

Government in 1951 in an effort to deter industrial action on the part of unions. Bans clauses introduced by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission also existed at this time to deter strike action. By 1969 the Victorian ATMOEA had accrued more than $13,000 in fines under the Act for striking and was ordered by the Commonwealth Industrial Court to pay over $8,000 up front. Rather than pay the fines, O’Shea refused to obey the Court’s orders and defied its summonses. O’Shea finally appeared at the Industrial Court in Melbourne on 15 May – on the day of his appearance over 5,000 unionists marched on the Court in a rally organised by a committee of 27 “rebel”

On the sixth day of the General Strike, Clarrie O’Shea was finally released after the ATMOEA’s outstanding fines were paid by a former advertiser manager call Dudley McDougall - who claimed to be acting on behalf of a ‘public benefactor’, but widely believed to have been acting on behalf of the Federal Government. Upon his release, O’Shea said: My release is a great victory for workers ...The infinite power of the workers when they are really aroused has frightened the life out of the government and the employers …8 7

“Abolish the Penal Powers: Freedom’s Fight of ‘69”. Published by the Trades Hall Council Administrative and Financial Review Committee (official name for group of 27 left-wing unions), 31 August 1969.

Katie Wood. “Fighting anti-union laws: the Clarrie O’Shea strikes”, Marxist Left Review, last modified 2013.

The outcome of the General Strike was a huge victory both for the ATMOEA and the Australian union movement – while bans clauses remain on the books of Commonwealth legislation, most of the anti-strike penal clauses were abolished in the ensuing years and, as a consequence of the strike, have never been invoked by the Commonwealth Government in any industrial dispute since.9

Loyalist Unions The 1917 General Strike not only deeply hurt the railway unions and the strikers involved, but also gave rise to the existence of a number of ‘loyalist’ unions, after the ARTSA and other unions were de-registered for their involvement in the strike.

National Union of Rail Workers Australia What was eventually to become the National Union of Rail Workers Australia (NUR) was preceded by the registration in New South Wales of six ‘loyalist’ railway and tramway unions at the end of 1917. The main loyalist union was the NSW Government Permanent Way Association (PWA, or Perway Association). The other unions included the Tramways Traffic Association, the NSW Locomotive Enginemen’s Union, the Government Workers Association, and the Association of Employees (Mechanical Branch) of the NSW Government Railways. The first two ceased to exist within eight years, while the remaining unions were to later amalgamate into the NUR. The tensions and conflicts that arose during the 1917 strike between so-called loyalists (scab labour)

ME Heagney. “How significant was the Clarrie O’Shea case?”, Australian Society for the Study of Labour History.

The PWA was opposed to direct action and methods such as strikes, and for their loyalty to the Railways during and after the strike were actively assisted by the Railway Commissioners. The Commissioners offered the union use of rail passes and railway tricycles for organising. They were also given access to railway premises to collect union subscriptions and post notices. During the three years following the strike, the de-registered ARTSA was denied such privileges. The Railway Commissioners also threatened to dismiss any railwaymen who refused to work with PWA members.11 The ARTSA had been weakened structurally by the strike’s defeat, and without registration and access to the workplace and arbitration system, was unable to resist the registration, operation and growth of the loyalist unions.

The 1917 General Strike saw some unions de-registered, while giving rise to new ‘loyalist’ unions.

and lilywhites (strikers), would become more heated with the emergence of the loyalist unions. As Greg Patmore’s research shows, “at the workplace both parties refused to socialise at lunch breaks and only talked on the job where necessary”.10

Many of these traditional tensions and mistrusts have lingered through the collective memories of rail workers for generations. The hostilities between the two groups saw the PWA come under attack from the Australian Railways Union (the successor to the deregistered ARTSA, and registered in 1920) at political and industrial levels. 10 Greg Patmore. The Origins of the National Union of Railwaymen, Labour History No 43, 1982, p44.

The defeated railway unions attempted to use political means within the ALP to eliminate the loyalists, without success. The ALP Storey Government in gaining office in 1920 passed the Trade Unions Registration Act, which registered the ARU and the other deregistered 1917 unions, and set up a Royal Commission to investigate the administration of the NSW Railway and Tramway Service. The Report revealed the connivance and support by the Railway Commissioners and the loyalist unions, including payments of wages and allowances to organisers. Fortunately, for the PWA and other loyalist unions, the ALP was defeated at the polls in 1922 before acting upon the requests for deregistration of the loyalists. The political offensive was revived with the re-election of the ALP and the Lang Government. The Government introduced an Industrial Arbitration (Amendment)

11 Archives Office of NSW Government Transport, 1918.

Bill to enact compulsory unionism and proscribing the loyalist unions from its operation as they were argued to be bogus ‘employer tools’ and not legitimate industrial unions. The legislation did not pass through the non-Labor upper house.12 The ARU also conducted concerted propaganda and recruitment campaigns aimed at defeating the PWA and loyalist unions. By the late 1920s the ARU had been re-organised and had appointed four full-time organisers, who travelled throughout the state visiting isolated workers and locations. Between 1924 and 1928 the ARU almost doubled its membership. The ARU’s campaigns and political attacks on the PWA, while causing them concern did not manage to remove them from the industrial landscape. The ALP refused to accept the request for affiliation of the PWA. The PWA’s conservative position and philosophy, and survival were reinforced by its amalgamations with the Association of Employees (Mechanical Branch) of the NSW Government Railways. The amalgamated union was registered in 1930 as the Railway Service Association (RSA), which in turn amalgamated with the NSW Railway and Tramway Service Agency (the Agency) - an organisation headed by conservative State MP W.P.J. Skelton, and based in Newcastle. The differences between the PWA and ARU were heightened with the onset of the Great Depression and the political and industrial concerns of that period. Ideologically, the positions of both became starker. The ARU adopted a radical stance, viewing the Depression as an opportunity to bring an end to capitalism through workers’ organisation. The Railroad journal ran articles 12 See Heather Radi and Peter Spearritt (Eds). Jack Lang (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger; 1977), in particular Chapter 5

along this theme and calling on members “to organise to overthrow a system which keeps them in subjection and starvation.”13 In contrast, the RSA became closely aligned to the conservative and patriotic Who’s For Australia League (WFAL). The principles of the WFAL included allegiance to the Motherland, encouragement of private enterprise, the illegality of strikes and lockouts, and rigid enforcement of law and order.14 This philosophy did not sit comfortably with the second Lang Labor Government, who again moved to pass legislation in 1931 to cancel the registration of the listed loyalist unions. The PWA responded by referring to the Bill as a communist attack, and an attempt by the Lang Government to submit the railways to “the Soviet plan of organization and control.”15 The Depression years shaped and sharpened people’s political and world-views. As Joe Poole, who was working as a fettler during the Depression recalled: “That period did influence my attitudes because you saw so much distress ... so much unemployment … so many people lining up in big lines for the dole”.16 The railways were directed to ensure that all railwaymen were to become financial members of bona fide unions (which excluded the PWA / RSA). Once more the PWA avoided extinction by the confluence of a number of forces. The Federal United 13 Railroad, 10/6/1930. 14 NUR archives, National Library of Australia; Railway Advocate 1930; and Patmore op.cit. p50. 15 Sydney Morning Herald reports 6/3/1931 and 20/11/1931. 16 Interview with Joe Poole in Hearn, Working Lives: A History of the Australian Railways Union (NSW Branch) (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger, 1999), p47.

Australia Party Government assisted by introducing the Amending Arbitration Bill in 1932, providing for the Federal registration of the RSA, and the deregistration of the ARU on the grounds that it had links with the Communist Red International of Labour Unions. Fortunately for both, the Bill didn’t go beyond the first reading in the House of Representatives, and the historic sacking of the NSW Lang Government by the Governor of NSW in 1932. The RSA did seek Federal registration in 1933, resulting in the formation of the Federal National Union of Railwaymen of Australia, and the NSW-registered union changed its name to National Union of Railwaymen, NSW Branch. Its opponents challenged this, and it wasn’t until 1938 that the NUR was re-established as a Federally registered union. The National Union of Railwaymen of Australia was first registered under the Commonwealth’s industrial relations legislation in March 1933. It was soon deregistered in July 1933, after strong opposition to the application by more than 20 unions (including the ARU, Federation of Salaried officers of Railway Commissioners, ATMOEA, and others) and many members of this original union were eventually covered by a second union of the same name, which registered on 7 December 1938. The NUR amalgamated with the Government Railways Transport Staff Association in 1938, with the Department of Main Roads Employees’ Union in 1942 and the Government Tramway Electrical Branch Workers’ Association around 1944-45. The Union continued under this name until 1982 when it changed to the National Union of Rail Workers of Australia. By 1940, it was reported that the NUR had commenced organising in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, and a Tasmanian branch was inaugurated by dissident

former ARU members that August. After strong opposition to the NUR from the Launceston Trades Hall Council, the Tasmanian State Labor government quickly confirmed that they would not recognise the NUR in that state. Nonetheless, the new state branch elected their first state executive in September 1940; by that time, the branch was reported to have 167 registered members and to be “well established”. It was reported in October 1940 that the ARU-NUR conflict at the Launceston rail yards had reached the stage where some workers were refusing to complete work begun by members of the opposite union.17 As mentioned earlier, these hostilities emanating from the strike of 1917 have never fully faded. The animosity between the ARU, the AFULE and the NUR survived through the century, and flared up regularly around industrial differences and disputes. The debates leading to the amalgamation of key rail and tram unions to form the Rail, Tram and Bus Union in 1993 reflect how raw some of these feelings were some 75 years later.

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

17 ‘Conditions in turmoil’, The Mercury, 31 October 1940, p5.

The 1993 amalgamation was the culmination of major changes in the industry. It was a time of rationalisation and consolidation, with services that had existed for a century being wound back or closed. It was a time, with many retrenchments, where workers were caught in conflicts over demarcation and job protection. It was also a time when the former ACTU President and Prime Minister Bob Hawke had put in place a policy platform to restructure antiquated industrial awards and practices, and rejuvenate the industrial relations landscape by legislating for the creation of 20 ‘super unions’ as the basis for negotiating industrial relations in major industries. It was the era of striving for the ‘clever country’ . The union amalgamation processes that flowed from these policy initiatives delivered some unlikely outcomes, as unions from different sectors joined forces. Unlike many of the cobbled-together configurations that occurred in other industries, however, the rail unions managed to construct a coalition of unions, not on an ideological or political affiliation basis, but on the prize of building a strong industry union that could serve each of their traditional constituents from a stronger bargaining position. The ‘empires’ within the railways were breaking down and were largely not relevant as forces in the modern era, from a management or union perspective. The break-up of the railways through privatisation, corporatism, contracting of functions and a range of new operators in the industry, demanded strong and unified industrial representation.

Former ARU Secretary, Jim Walshe, who retired to work full- time on the amalgamation process summarised the ARU position at the time:

We’d pretty well lost signalmen from the industry, shunters were disappearing, and guards could have gone anywhere. So we may not have been viable in the future. It was also an opportunity to be rid of the ‘filthy’ demarcation disputes that had gone on. The process itself involved intensive meetings between the partner unions: interstate meetings, detailed conferences with legal advisers to hammer out rules that would satisfy the various ‘tribes’. There were arguments and brawls to be had, political differences to assuage, agreements to be made and broken. In all, the formal process involved in the making of the amalgamated union took some eighteen months to two years to broker. Once the amalgamation had been achieved, then began the longer process of transition and adjustment to the cultural changes required for the amalgamation marriage to work. The end result was nonetheless a genuine industrial amalgamation rather than a political grouping. A brief reflection on the state of play leading to amalgamation is testimony to this assertion. The ARU in NSW was aligned to the ALP Right faction; while its National Office at the time was clearly Left of Labor in its politics. Victoria was Left, Queensland was uniquely Queensland; South Australia was soft Left; Tasmania aligned to the Victorian Left; while Western Australia was relatively new and with few members. The AFULE was a similarly mixed bag, and depending on who you asked, had a similar mix of Left, Right and ‘apolitical’ branches. The NUR was traditionally a conservative body, not affiliated with the ALP, but eventually identifying with the soft Left of Labor on the political radar. ATMOEA was a different entity again. In NSW they neither identified or aligned with

Left or Right, but took a sectional position of looking after the ‘interests of buses and trams’. However, with this political tapestry and various histories as the backdrop, agreement was reached between the various political groupings to support each other through the amalgamation process, then sort out positions in free elections after the amalgamation. It was a genuine, if imperfect, industry amalgamation – and one that has been allowed to take root and grow in its own directions. The rail unions have built and consolidated a union that despite the sea changes in the industry and labour market generally, retains a uniquely high union membership in the public and private sectors of the rail industry. Whereas the RTBU can probably claim a historical tradition of industrial moderation rather than militancy, it also retains a perception and respect as one of the more ‘powerful’ and influential unions. The troubles afflicting investment and management of the railways also affects a broad cross-section of the population. When there is a major problem on the rail network it affects young and old alike. It affects business people, millions of commuters, school children and pensioners. Thus, any action or policy position by the RTBU has the capacity to impact widely across the community. This, in part, accounts for media perceptions of industrial militancy within the industry. It helps explain why the RTBU is often able to gain broad community support for its campaigns and positions. The position and influence of the RTBU is no accident. It is partly the result of the developments and cultural evolution of the industry and its place in society. But the leaders of the unions involved in the 1993 amalgamation understood the unique power that a national, all-grades unions would hold.

2. CONTEXT FOR AMALGAMATION

Industry Changes Whereas the amalgamations of the late 1960s and early 1970s had been instigated by the challenge of meeting industrial changes in the mining industry and perceptions of increased employer power, those of 20 years later were brought about by an environment in which, by the beginning of the 1990s, “union membership had declined from 51 per cent of the Australian workforce in 1976 to 42 per cent in 1988” and trade unions were “fighting for their very survival in the face of industrial and economic reorganization” and “legal and political onslaughts on the conditions of work and workers’ rights to organise”18. Several factors contributed to this decline. Computerised systems replaced much manual labour. Railways, in a period of three or four decades, had passed from very labourintensive steam, through dieselisation to a mix of diesel and electric. Trades such as blacksmiths and carriage makers disappeared when fibreglass and aluminium replaced wood as the material for building carriages and wagons.19 The proportion of private industry (often with non-unionised workforces) increased, and governments began outsourcing contracts to private manufacturers, resulting in the closure of government railway workshops at Ipswich (Queensland), Eveleigh (NSW), Launceston (Tasmania), and Midland (WA) in the last two decades of the 20th century.20 The general railway workforce underwent considerable demographic change, caused by an increased

18 Kirkby, 2008 pp392-393

proportion of white-collar occupations, which are traditionally less organised.21 The external factors described above, in conjunction with staffing changes and functions all conspired to dramatically impact the rail and tram workforces. The list can be expanded to include large and small changes, such as: centralisation of functions such as new signal boxes, rail operations centres, containerisation; closure of Goods Yards such as Darling Harbour, rationalisation of regional lines, mechanisation, commercialisation and corporatism, de-regulation, removal of conductors from trains, trams and buses, reduction of station staff through automatic ticket vending machines, and (more recently) electronic travel cards and payment systems, one-person train and tram operations, through to driverless trains and light rail. Many of these job losses and changes are also often much more than a decline in workforce and union membership numbers. They also represent the loss of rich cultural practices. For example, the closure of Eveleigh Workshops (employing between 5,000 – 7,000 workers at its peak) in 1989 not only led to the loss of jobs, but also saw the closure of a central union organising and social activity hub.22 An argument may also be mounted in relation to unions being victims of their own success. In particular, the current workforces of the rail and tram industries come with different histories and expectations to

19 Fox, 2006.

21 Bobbie Oliver, What has amalgamation achieved for transport union members?, Conference Paper – September 2011.

20 Elliott, 2006; Oliver, 2004; and Lucy Taksa, Spatial practices and struggles over ground at Eveleigh Railway Workshops, Seventh National Labour History Conference, 2001.

22 Lucy Taksa, ‘Labour Politics at the Eveleigh Railway Workshops’, in Markey (Ed), Labour and Community: Historical Essays, University of Wollongong Press, 2001.

Bernie Willingdale and Jack Maddox lead a joint union protest on Labour Day, 1975.

union members of the past. Whereas previously much of the rail and public transport workforce consisted of workers who joined upon leaving school, and sought a job for life, many contemporary workers are coming to the industry from other and more varied work backgrounds. Bob Proctor was working as a train driver at Werris Creek at the time of the amalgamation, and continued at that location after the amalgamation. He was also an Executive Councillor with the AFULE (the AFULE’s last executive), continuing in that role post-amalgamation as an Executive Councillor of the Locomotive Division of the newly formed Public Transport Union. Bob’s reflections on some of the

changes in the industry, and how the AFULE may have coped with these, were mixed: We have seen a multitude of changes over the last few decades - changes to crewing levels (three to two), removal of Brake Vans from all Freight Trains and the subsequent protracted integration and subsequent removal of the Guard position on Freight, increased crewing districts and the abolition of most depots, removal of nearly all Railway employees except Locomotive grades outside the metropolitan areas, wholesale privatisation, reduced and changed training regimes, the system of multiple EAs replacing the common Locomotive Engineman’s Award, differing working conditions - I could go on. These have all impacted on the industry in general and Loco in particular. As to whether the AFULE would have coped with these changes I would have to say that we would have had to adapt as the Locomotive Division has had to adapt over the years. Don’t forget that we went from being the AFULE to the PTU Locomotive Division mid-term for those of us that were on the AFULE Executive at the time. The changes were gradual initially. We were still the AFULE but we also had to try to make this amalgamation work as we were now part of a much bigger union. I think the AFULE could have also met these challenges, but it wouldn’t be the same AFULE today. It would be the same as the Locomotive Division, having had to restructure to remain relevant. The AFULE would have struggled, however, without the resources that came courtesy of amalgamation.23

All of these changes in the industry also posed larger

23 Email interview with Bob Proctor, March 2023.

challenges for unions operating in a rapidly changing industrial landscape. The times of compulsory unionism, relatively high union membership and workforce stability were conditions for some unions to become complacent in terms of maintaining union activity levels, and even recruitment efforts. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing many unions during these changes were the flexibility and ability to creatively respond to the changes in the areas and ways that work was being performed.

Demarcations This booklet has touched on some of the early animosities that came directly from the 1917 General Strike, among ‘Lilywhites’ (strikers) and ‘Loyalists’ (scab workers). These manifested on the job at personal levels, as well as ongoing hostilities industrially, especially where different unions had potentially similar coverage of some workers, and were looking to poach or maintain those members. Others were more tribal in nature, and reflected the insular nature of some sections of the rail and public transport workforce. Frustration at these approaches was expressed by the ARU National Secretary Ralph Taylor at the ARU’s 7th National Convention in April 1990, when he reported that: Notwithstanding the lead provided by the ACTU Congress, which called on Australian Unions to amalgamate within 20 industry groupings, the melancholy fact within our industry is that union officialdom is more concerned with maintaining its own parochial or craft power base than it is with changing outdated union structures.

As Bobbie Oliver has observed, in her discussions of the Locomotive Engine Drivers Union (LEDU) in Western Australia: These men saw themselves as having different working conditions and interests from other railway staff such as guards, signalmen, porters, and ticket collectors … Furthermore, they were intensely proud of being railwaymen – and engine drivers in particular. Given that these men saw themselves as an elite, with different interests even from other railway staff, how did they react when, in its centenary year, their union merged with members of rival unions, who had not earned the particular mystique of being footplate men.24 In the decades leading to the 1993 amalgamation, it was not unusual for disputes to break out between unions over issues such as membership coverage, or positions on industry and social issues. For example, a bitter dispute broke out between the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and the Australian Railways Union in 1981. The AWU originally had coverage of workers engaged in the construction of the Commonwealth Railway which was completed in 1917. Many of the workers who were engaged on the construction of the railway remained to become its operating staff. As the ARU was not registered until 1921, there was no railway union in existence in 1917 to which the Commonwealth rail workers could belong. For years there was a verbal agreement between the two unions that the AWU would cover workers in the Federal Government-operated railways. Although the ARU claimed to have a constitutional

24 Bobbie Oliver, ‘The Impact of Union Amalgamation on Membership: An Australian Case Study’, SAGE 2016.

right to cover all rail workers, the AWU continued to recruit Commonwealth rail workers up to at least 1926. It appears that the ARU handed over these members to the AWU on the understanding that the AWU would give up the rail workers it had recruited as members in the Queensland and NSW permanent way areas. Until the dispute in 1981, both unions observed the terms of the agreement.

an amicable solution. This was rejected by the AWU and/or the ANRC, which proceeded to take a series of legal actions against the ARU. These included at first taking action under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act seeking to exclude the ARU from having award coverage of the ANR. The AWU abandoned this action, and instead instigated an action seeking the deregistration of the ARU.25

In 1972 the Whitlam Government opened negotiations for the transfer of State Railways to the Commonwealth. The South Australian Government agreed to transfer its non-metropolitan railways to the Commonwealth, while Tasmania transferred what was left of its railway in whole to the Commonwealth. Thus was born the Australian National Railway, comprising the Commonwealth Railway, South Australian (non-metropolitan) and Tasmanian Government Railway. Until 1978, the management of the three railways remained separate and autonomous, before management and operation passed completely to the ANR Commission.

Jim Walshe’s term as NSW ARU Secretary coincided with the appointment of David Hill as Chief Executive Officer of State Rail and a new round of rationalisations and cost-cutting. It was an often hostile environment in relation to demarcation disputes such as those surrounding the removal of the Brake Vans off freight trains, and three man crewing disputes.

The management structure was then integrated into three regions, with the Administration Head Office in Adelaide. A common management structure was adopted and officers and employees free to transfer or be appointed within any of the three regions. One of the ARU members was promoted to the position of Lorry Driver at Port Augusta stores. When he refused to resign from the ARU and join the AWU, the AWU members at Port Augusta refused to work with him. The company did not provide work for the ARU member, but continued to pay his wages. Several attempts were made to resolve the dispute within the union movement, with the ARU offering to seek the assistance of the ACTU to hold discussions to find

Many of the disputes and demarcations were ‘petty’ and ‘tribal’ in nature and not necessarily a true reflection of the relationships between the unions or the practical realities within the industry. Jim insisted that much of the demarcation of that time was created and generated by management, not the unions: We recognised different areas of demarcation – this was mainly managerial – and was about maintaining the five railway empires. There were the Traffic, Locomotive, Signals and Communication, Workshops and Perway Empires – if there was an inquiry each would try to blame the other. Strangely enough, through such conflicts came the added impetus for union amalgamation. Jim eventually

25 ARU 3 National Convention report, Clyde Cameron College, Albury-Wodonga, April 1982, also extracts from an ARU Circular issued during the 1981 membership dispute. rd

retired from the Secretary’s position in 1992 to work full-time on assisting the amalgamation process. It can also be argued that while there were some notable, and mostly local, disputes between the main unions that eventually formed the amalgamated RTBU, there are also many examples of cooperation and solidarity around common issues. Perhaps with the exception of the NURWA, the other main rail and tram unions saw themselves as ‘natural allies’ when it came to major industrial issues, often combining in disputes with government or employers. While these unions may have eyed each other with suspicion, or with occupational rivalry, from time to time, they seldom viewed each other as enemies, but rather as comrades in their main industrial goals. For example, in the early 1990s 17 disaffected AFULE members in Tasmania had quit the AFULE and joined the ARU. The relevant unions in this situation could have responded in various ways, including taking this up as a demarcation battleground or testing the bona fides of the proposed amalgamation. A meeting was convened between the Tasmanian members involved and the ARU National Secretary, Roger Jowett and AFULE General Secretary, Ron Bradford. The ARU took the position that while constitutionally they had coverage and could legitimately accept these members, it was felt that in the spirit of the proposed amalgamation it would be more desirable to maintain the status quo, keep the peace between the two unions, and recommend the members remain with the AFULE. This was generally considered the honourable, and strategically most sensible approach, and it went some way towards appeasing some of the resistance and suspicion between the unions.

Arguments for Amalgamation In an analysis of the economic and cultural changes enveloping unions in the 1970s, politician, writer and commentator Clyde Cameron highlighted how the rise of trans-national corporations presented a massive challenge to the old structure of craft unions. Looking at the challenge as an opportunity, however, led to Cameron to note that: it is at the industrial level that the transnationals are most vulnerable. They really fear the power of organised labour; but only if it is organised into unions strong enough to be effective. That is why their political minions in Australia want to stymie all attempts at union amalgamation. The concentration of employer power must be made to confront a similar concentration of labour power.26 Cameron also cited the example of then West Germany, with three times our population, but had only 16 unions compared with nearly 320 in Australia.

One Big Union – IWW Early in the 20th century came the campaign for the One Big Union (OBU). It followed very much along the lines of its US founders, the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW or ‘Wobblies’), whose supporters urged the establishment of a giant Workers Industrial Union of Australia. The IWW was formed in 1905, yet by the 1920s had all but disappeared in Australia.

Workers of the World noted the concentration of management into fewer and fewer hands while trade unions fostered a system that allowed workers to be pitted against each other – thus helping to defeat each other.27 These conditions, the preamble argued, could only be challenged by having all workers in an industry belonging to a single union - so that in the case of a strike or lockout, an injury to one would be treated ‘as concern of all’. This industrial unionism was in stark contrast to the craft unionism of the time. While the RTBU amalgamation consistently engaged and involved the main rail and tram unions, as a means of concentrating industrial strength within the industry, it stopped short of pushing for an industry union that covered absolutely all workers in the industry. In order for the RTBU to be the exclusive or sole union in the industry, it would have required other unions to relinquish membership, for no foreseeable or immediate gain. The time and/or conditions were not conducive for this outcome. So, while the factors that led to the major union amalgamations in the early 90s significantly reduced the number of unions, aiming for the twenty ‘super unions’, there was no serious consideration or enthusiasm by government or the union movement to fully embrace the One Big Union concept.

Australia Reconstructed and Union Amalgamations

The preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial

Following a visit to Western Europe by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) under the stewardship

26 Clyde Cameron. Unions in Crisis (Hill of Content, 1982), Chapter 4.

27 One Big Union: the Principles and Goals of the Industrial Workers of the World

of Bill Kelty, the ACTU published a report titled Australia Reconstructed. Under the heading entitled ‘Strategic Unionism’, Australia Reconstructed established an argument that the union movement needed to reduce the number of individual unions and restructure the ACTU in order to respond to the changing economic and industrial circumstances in the 1980s. In 1987, the ACTU also produced Future Strategies for the Trade Union Movement, which set out an ambitious process for converting the existing 300-plus unions in Australia at the time to just 20 industry-based super unions. Future Strategies argued there was a need for unions to respond by accelerating negotiations to amalgamate at a national level, further developing the national structures of unions; increasing the coordination between the ACTU and affiliated unions; and encouraging the development of larger and more efficient unions. It recommended that the needed ‘rationalisation’ should occur along broad industry lines and provided a detailed outline of the direction of union amalgamation.28 While the main push for union amalgamations came from the ACTU, the idea was embraced by the Hawke Labor Government to the extent that they supported the initiative through key changes to industrial legislation and made public funds available to facilitate the process of union amalgamations. Buchanan summarises the main assistance and support by the Federal Government as: • [giving] the ACTU a key advisory role when industrial tribunals settled demarcation disputes …; 28 Michael Rafferty, ‘Union Amalgamation: The Enduring Legacy of Australia Reconstructed ?’, Journal of Australian Political Economy, No 39, June 1997.

Further weight was given to the ACTU push for union rationalisation through amalgamation, with Federal Labor Government changes to the Industrial Relations Act in 1990, which provided for reviews of all unions with less than 10,000 members (previously the number had been unions with less than 1,000 members), and for union registration to be cancelled if it could not be shown that there were special circumstances which justify its continuation. The requirement for unions with less than 10,000 members to ‘show cause’ was overturned several years later, having been found to be in breach of ILO Conventions relating to freedom of association. However, in the intervening period, it provided an added impetus, and implied threats to smaller unions to ‘amalgamate or perish.’

The Hawke Labor Government actively supported the push to consolidate the number of unions through amalgamations.

• [streamlining] voting procedures to allow amalgamations to occur (i.e., eliminated a quorum requirement meaning you only had to have a majority of those voting agreeing to the change); • making $AU25,000 available to smaller unions involved in each amalgamation ballot; and • [paying for and running] amalgamation ballots through the Australian Electoral Commission.29 29 John Buchanan, Union Amalgamations as a Basis for Union Renewal in Australia: Insights from Unfinished Business, Just Labour, Vol 2, Spring 2003.

Buchanan, in assessing the outcomes of the ACTU union rationalisation process, has stated that: In the first half of the 1990s the number of unions operating in Australia more than halved. In 1991 there were 275, by 1996 there were 132… [there were] more amalgamations … between 1991 and 1996 than in the previous fifty years. He further added that while the number of unions didn’t come down to the originally planned 20 large, industry-based ‘super unions’, this has virtually been achieved. : “Around 90 per cent of Australia’s unionists are in the 20 largest unions.”30

The major driver behind the push for union rationalisation was to address the decline in union membership - it was considered that there were too many unions and many of them were too small to meet members’ needs. The benefits were considered to be: • through amalgamation substantially more resources would become available to increase the range and quality of services to members; • a simplification of union structures; • reduced incidence of demarcation conflicts; • unions would be better able to withstand the coming industrial challenges, such as legislation; and • a smaller number of larger unions would be more able to intervene in both the industrial and political arenas.

17 30 IBID, p58.

3. THE AMALGAMATION PROCESS

Rail industry amalgamations and membership

Australian Amalgamated Society of Railway Employees (WA ASRE) joined with its Federal counterpart to become the Australian Railways Union (ARU) WA Branch in the 1970s. In the 1980s, a number of small sectional unions (guards, shunters and conductors) amalgamated with the ARU in Queensland.

From the formation of ARTSA (precursor to ARU) in 1886, union amalgamation has been a feature of the rail industry. In his 1982 book Unions in Crisis, Clyde Cameron noted the example of a possible ARU/AWU merger in the 1920s: In October 1924 a conference of the Federated Carter and Drivers Union, meeting in Brisbane seriously considered amalgamating with the AWU; and in fact, resolved to approach the Trolleymen, Draymen and Motor-driver’s Union of New South Wales to join them in the amalgamation. Then in 1928, Dick Keane, the Federal Secretary of the Australian Railways’ Union, put a proposal to AWU Convention delegates for an ARU amalgamation with the AWU.

However, both proposals were rejected when the rank and file of those unions demanded, and were refused, AWU rule changes that would ensure that the policy and officers of the amalgamation would be brought under the effective control of the membership. But a more compelling reason for keeping the ARU out of the AWU was put by those calling for the amalgamation of all transport unions – rail, road and sea. They pointed out that there was a ‘Transport Council’ operating in Queensland which included the ARU, the Seamen, the Waterside Workers Federation, and the Miners. The crunch line of their case against AWU amalgamation declared: ‘the absorption of the ARU and AWU would put an end to all schemes for closer transport unity.31

31 Cameron, Unions in Crisis, p55.

Cartoon promoting amalgamation in the ARU – NSW Railroad Journal, 1992.

These concerns continued on through to the RTBU amalgamation of 1993 and beyond. There were several attempts to pursue the industry union of rail workers, to potentially include other transport and waterside workers, as well as other grades within the railways and tramways. While the RTBU amalgamation did bring together key rail and tram unions, they failed to include or embrace the broader transport industry. A more cautious approach to further amalgamation with other transport unions was couched in the formation of the Transport Union Federation (TUF), consisting of the RTBU, Maritime Union of Australia and the Transport Workers Union, to work cooperatively on shared issues and interests, with perhaps a view to amalgamation further down the track. Bobbie Oliver argued that the first post-war example of amalgamation to affect the railway industry was that of the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths (separate unions that had combined into one Society in 1966) and the Amalgamated Engineering Union (AEU) to form the AMWU in 1971. These unions represented several trades in the railway workshops, but not members of the railway footplate or platform staff.32 The Western 32 Bobbie Oliver,: An Australian Case Study (SAGE, 2016).

Despite these developments, the 1980s saw union membership decline. In her 2009 book about the Seamen’s Union, Diane Kirby wrote: union membership had declined from 51 per cent of the Australian workforce in 1976 to 42 per cent in 1988 … with unions fighting for their very survival in the face of industrial and economic reorganisation ... and legal and political onslaughts on the conditions of work and workers’ rights to organise.33

Railway union membership To this day, the RTBU has relatively high levels of density in its industries. Nevertheless, any analysis of membership figures since amalgamation must be treated cautiously, given the huge changes in rail, tram and bus industries over those 30 years - including privatisation, automation, changing work patterns and the ideological attacks on trade unionism over that time. The following figures have been compiled from figures from the Australian Railways Union national office for all rail unions in the mid-1980s. The table includes only those figures for the main amalgamating unions (not including ATMOEA – estimated to be approximately 12,000–15,000 nationally), to provide an indication of membership numbers and concentrations prior to amalgamation. 33 D Kirkby, Voices from the Ships : Australian Seafarers and their Union, UNSW Press 2008, pp392–393

Estimated Rail Union Membership - mid 1980s Union

NSW

Qld

Victoria

Total

ARU

18,500

10,509

12,800

3,400

3,109

48,318

AFULE

4,550

2,700

2,150

1,240

867

11,507

NURWA

1,451

1,521

24,501

13,209

14,950

4,710

3,976

61,346

Motives for amalgamation In the previous chapter, we looked at some of the changes in the rail and public transport industry, the policy approaches of the Hawke Labor Government, and the push under the ACTU’s Australia Reconstructed as the driving forces behind union rationalisation and amalgamation. The ARU was the primary driver in the RTBU amalgamation and, although being the largest partner in the proposed arrangement, it saw the opportunity both to secure ‘principal industry union’ status, and to grow a new larger all-grades industry union, which had always been on its books and rules as a major goal. For some of the smaller unions, it was also viewed as a means of survival, and having a seat at the table of a principal union. The larger unions variously viewed the process as a means of securing and shoring up influence and coverage in particular sections of the industry. While the NUR and ARU were historically at odds, the NUR would have remained outside the main rationalisation push, and if it had survived the ACTU/ Government threat of deregistering smaller unions, it may well have struggled to survive in this new industrial landscape. From the perspective of some in the ARU, including the NUR as an amalgamation

thinking is, hang on, if we don’t play this game, we’re gonna be left behind. … There was no great campaign on the job to say this was wrong, because it was being sold that we are building the trade union movement to a stronger position.34 The ARU National Convention of April 1992 summarised the perceived benefits of rationalisation of unions in the rail and public transport industries. It was claimed that rationalisation would: • create a more effective bargaining unit

partner avoided ongoing demarcation conflicts over similar areas of coverage, and the challenge of taking over the smaller union, while bringing it into the tent and having better control of activity and influence in the industry. As former NSW Branch Secretary Nick Lewocki observed: So from the ARU’s point of view (in relation to joining the NUR in the amalgamation process), you’re saying, yes, well, this is a chance to get these burrs out of our saddle. Why wouldn’t we take over the smaller union, which had problems at that stage with leadership that had just knocked off their president at the time? So you would’ve had ATMOEA, NUR and AFULE with relatively small membership compared to the ARU, and being the insignificant unions in ACTU Secretary Bill Kelty’s big plan. So there was, I think from the ARU’s point of view, the opportunity to get this burr out of their bloody saddle, effectively taking over the NUR and removing potential demarcation and member poaching. There was also the belief that the ACTU union rationalisation moves were on the right track. And I think from the other unions’ point of view the

• reshape the outdated award and skills base • provide improved OHS, education, research, industrial and financial services to members • create a more effective lobby on Federal and State governments to increase investment and expand public transport.35 At the time, Nick Lewocki had moved from the ARU to the NSW Trades and Labor Council, but he was still a close observer of the amalgamation discussions. Nick noted how other unions grappled with similar issues, but over time the newly-amalgamated unions were able to forge their own identities: Then being at Labor Council where I had to go down to Melbourne on a number of occasions with unions who wanted to amalgamate. And they were quite hostile to start off with, but it didn’t take them long to think we could get left behind here. Some of the amalgamations were strange combinations. And, you know, even some of the amalgamations, when they amalgamated, they still operated as sort of separate unions for a while. 34 Interview with Nick Lewocki, March 2023. 35 ARU National Convention, Clyde Cameron College, 6 April 1992.

Some road bumps While a series of conciliatory meetings, discussions and actions were occurring in the 1980s between various rail and transport unions, there were also obstacles and difficulties to be resolved along the way. The report by ARU National Secretary Ralph Taylor to the ARU National Convention at Clyde Cameron College Wodonga in 1988, outlined efforts to reconcile differences and not repeat past hostilities. The minutes of the ARU National Convention noted that:

Vote YES – Tasmanian amalgamation poster.

But I think Kelty and the ACTU Executive were smart enough to know that that’s a little bit like migration. You know, you get migrants coming in, they’re not familiar with the country, the systems, the whole lot … But the next generation, they become the ‘Aussie kids’ ... And I think that would’ve been the strategy with the ACTU saying this is a long term project. This is not just the immediate outcomes, as the next generation union officials come in, the amalgamations and the separate unions will become history. Because as new people in the industry, they’ll be joining the new union. And you can talk about the old union but they won’t.36 36 Interview with Nick Lewocki, March 2023.

At the National Executive meeting held in December 1986, a resolution was adopted supporting the holding of a two-way seminar of ARU and AFULE representatives to discuss the future of locomotive grades and train operations in all systems. As a consequence of this resolution, a meeting between the National Officers of both unions took place at which the AFULE Officers indicated they would put the ARU proposal to the meeting of the AFULE Australian Council scheduled for March ’87. The AFULE National Officers then advised that their Australian Council meeting in March could not agree to a meeting between their Australian Council and the ARU National Executive and resolved to reactivate s142A (intrastate dispute between two unions) proceedings against the ARU.37

Secretary Bill Kelty, the unions agreed that the ACTU would adjudicate the demarcation dispute between the ARU and AFULE in Tasmania, the sharing arrangement (of second persons) in NSW would continue, and the unions agree to withdraw their s142A applications. Subsequent meetings between the two unions addressed the matters in dispute in Tasmania, as well as in Victoria around membership. It was also agreed to establish a Rail Union Liaison Committee to work through such issues: Both unions agreed that discussions should be held between the National bodies of the two unions on the issues of increased cooperation, federation and possible amalgamation.38

Western Australian resistance Labour historian Bobbie Oliver noted that in Western Australia, the Locomotive Engine Drivers’, Firemen’s and Cleaners Union (LEDU), which was the State Branch of the AFULE (but doggedly held onto its original name so as not to lose its identity), refused to amalgamate with the other rail unions in 1993. It eventually did amalgamate with the RTBU in 1999, but many of the issues and concerns raised in not amalgamating earlier were similar to those of other unions leading up to the 1993 amalgamation.

These proceedings were adjourned while efforts were made to resolve the dispute using the ACTU rather than the courts. In an agreement brokered by ACTU

According Oliver, the LEDU was founded in 1898, and covered employees who were known in the railway industry as footplate staff – initially the drivers, firemen, and cleaners of steam locomotives, but later the drivers and assistant drivers on diesel engines.

37 ARU National Convention, Clyde Cameron College, April 1988.

38 IBID.

These men saw themselves as having different working conditions and interests from other railway staff such as guards, signalmen, porters, and ticket collectors. Furthermore, they were intensely proud of being railwaymen, and engine drivers in particular.

Division continues with the principles that the AFULE extolled, and fights ferociously for the rights of the Locomotive Enginemen who are its members. The Locomotive Division of the RTBU is now ‘the oldest railway union in the world’.40

The question of ‘retaining their identity’ therefore became a particularly potent issue for the Western Australian train drivers. The fact that the WA union – alone of all those that entered into the AFULE in 1921 – kept its original name indicates the strong desire to retain independence.39

Bobbie Oliver’s case study on union amalgamation gives a thorough account of the LEDU’s decision to stay out of the amalgamation in 1993, and then to join it six years later:

Bob Proctor shared some of the sentiment of not completely losing sight of the old AFULE culture and history: I believe that as the years pass, the old AFULE (in name) will lose its relevancy to the majority of new members. The culture has changed in the industry and it has changed in the union that represents train drivers … The historical links shouldn’t be forgotten. Generations of Locomotive Enginemen before me fought tooth and nail for the conditions that we now enjoy, and are so often taken for granted. It is incumbent upon the RTBU that this past is not forgotten, nor is the fact that the Locomotive Division of the RTBU can trace its lineage directly back to the AFULE – the oldest railway union in the world. The AFULE has a proud legacy. As to how this is done, I can only suggest that the Locomotive

39 Oliver, The Impact of Union Amalgamation on Membership.

In 1983, in the eastern states, the AFULE began talks with the ARU, with a view to forming one union of railway workers (Ellercamp, 1983). The LEDU opposed the amalgamation plans, in particular because, according to Des McPolin (the union’s State Secretary 1986–1996), the proposed amalgamation discussions had been arranged without adequate consultation. McPolin warned that if talks continued before all of the Divisions had been consulted and given a full opportunity to discuss the proposal, the WA Division would prefer to enter into amalgamation discussions with other Western Australian unions, with whom it felt it had more in common … He wrote that locomotive enginemen were ‘a proud breed of workers’, who would not be intimidated by the ACTU or the AFULE. Clearly, he felt that the union’s rank and file had a strong desire to maintain a separate identity within a larger union of transport workers, with whom footplate staff would share some common concerns. Despite these differences, however, a 1991 LEDU Working Party Report on a proposed amalgamation of themselves with the ARU and the Amalgamated Tramways and Motor Omnibus Employees’ 40 Email interview with Bob Proctor, April 2023.

Votes YES – NSW amalgamation poster.

Association (ATMOEA) indicated that many practical issues such as relocation of office staff and officials would not present major difficulties. Yet there were some complications. The ARU and the LEDU were State registered, while ATMOEA was registered federally. It is significant that members of ATMOEA, the smallest and least well-resourced of the three, feared monopoly by the larger railway unions. Some members objected to the union disposing of property that had been acquired with contributions from the rank and file. The loss of such assets was equated with a loss of union identity and possibly also the loyalty that most members felt toward their union (LEDU, 1991). Despite the optimism in the 1991 Working Party report, the LEDU again reneged on amalgamation, leaving the other two parties to create the Australian RTBU. The LEDU continued to seek a merger with other WA unions.

In 1996, in controversial and divisive circumstances (Oliver, 2016), the union elected a new President, David Hathaway, who strongly opposed amalgamation with the RTBU. Hathaway stated that the union must continue to resist amalgamating with either the RTBU or the Australian Services Union (ASU; ‘the old Right Wing Clerks’ Union,’ as he termed it). They should ‘hold together as enginemen’ but, if amalgamation became necessary, it would be better to ‘look to a respectable blue collar Union’ (Hathaway, 1996). Despite the strong feelings against the ASU, the LEDU’s Executive signed a Memorandum of Understanding with this union in 1997. This move did not please some of the membership, who objected that railway officers ‘are not Enginemen’s friends’, and they circulated a petition in September 1997 to reconsider the issue of amalgamation with the RTBU.

After more than four years of the Court Liberal Coalition Government (where existing awards and centralised bargaining had been replaced with individual workplace agreements) and industry rationalisations, it became clear that the LEDU could not prevent the loss of conditions that had ‘taken 100 years to gain’ (Hathaway, 1997). In mid1998, the LEDU’s centenary year, which should have been a year of celebration, the membership voted on the matter of ‘harmonisation’ of the LEDU and the RTBU. Only 360 ballot papers were issued, indicating that the membership had more than halved since 1994 (LEDU, 1997). Of 217 completed ballots returned, over two thirds voted in favour of amalgamation.41

41 Oliver, The Impact of Union Amalgamation on Membership.

The new union, the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industrial Union of Workers (WA Branch), was registered in the State Industrial Relations Commission on 12 March 1999.

Managing the amalgamation process During the 1980s, there were some 28 unions in the rail and public transport industries across Australia, and a number of sectional state-based unions. Some unions were removed from the rail industry by organisational change (e.g. ACOA and AWU). The latter was demarcated out of interstate passenger trains by the ACTU. From this collection of unions came the consideration of which ones should reasonably form the core of the new RTBU. The potential partners shifted around as discussions and approaches blossomed or petered out, or some found other amalgamation partners. Former RTBU Victoria Branch Secretary Trevor Dobbyn noted that there were also other unions in the frame as potential participants in the amalgamation: The MUA was for a while putting out feelers for an amalgamation with the RTBU and the TWU to create a powerful transport union, but our national leadership was lukewarm about this and the moment passed. The MUA eventually amalgamated with the CFMEU … The RTBU amalgamation was an industrial amalgamation that made sense. From an ARU perspective it followed a long history of amalgamation that was in line with the union objective of creating an industry union.42 42 Email interview with Trevor Dobbyn, May 2023. (Trevor was an ARU Organiser at the time of amalgamation, and later RTBU Victorian Branch State Secretary 2000–2014)

Former ARU/RTBU National Secretary Roger Jowett was forthright about the need for an industry union: The history of the ARU in the 20th century was the pursuit of an all-grades industry union for rail workers. Its formation was a consequence of the perceived weaknesses of sectional, occupational unions that dominated rail union structures in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There was no holding back as to the views of the ARU about craft unionism; the ‘curse of craft unionism’ and the ‘scourge of craft unionism’ were the epitaphs used by the ARU. The lack of unity between organisations hindered campaigns, and employers and governments were able to readily divide and undermine campaigns.43 In 1992, the ARU National Convention endorsed the objective of submitting the ‘New Union’ amalgamation to a ballot of members. It also authorised the National Secretary to initiate potential amalgamation discussions with other transport unions including the TWU, WWF (now MUA) and ASU. The RTBU and TWU again explored the possibility of amalgamating in 1999, with an RTBU National Council resolution of 1999 stating: Council notes the development of a strategic alliance between the RTBU and TWU in 1998 and the formation of a joint working party to prepare and develop a discussion paper on a plan for the amalgamation of both unions and to conduct a due diligence of both organisations.44

43 Email interview with Roger Jowett, June 2023. 44 Minutes of RTBU National Council, 26-29 October 1999.

The RTBU, MUA and TWU maintained a cooperative alliance through the Transport Union Federation (TUF), (see p18) which maintained open dialogue and joint campaigns around common interests. The early discussions around amalgamation partners also included the Australian Transport Officers Association, which ultimately amalgamated with the Municipal Officers Association and the Technical Services Guild, to form the Australian Services Union (ASU), and the Association of Railway Professional Officers of Australia (ARPOA), which ultimately amalgamated with what is now Professionals Australia. The National Convention of the ARU had endorsed approaches to amalgamation with ATMOEA and the NUR as early as the mid-1980s. For example, the National Convention of 1988 noted that it: welcomes warmly the proposals for amalgamation with the ATMOEA and believes that the successful culmination of such forward looking proposals would prove to be of substantial material benefit to the membership of both organisations. Convention notes with pleasure the close unity which has existed over many years between various branches of the ARU and the ATMOEA during which the aims and objectives of both organisations have been almost entirely identical and in which defence of these and the gaining of improvements in wages and conditions have been won by joint coordination action.45 45 ARU National Convention minutes, Albury-Wondonga, April 1988.

The same Convention, in less glowing terms, also referred to possible amalgamation with the NUR, when it stated that: Convention recognises the long-term detriment to the unity of railway workers in NSW and Tasmania caused by the NUR. Whilst appreciating the difficulties and antipathy which have arisen between the NUR and ARU over the years, Convention determines that whilst such attitudes will not be erased over night (sic], the views expressed by certain officers of the NUR indicates the need to endeavour to begin new relationships with this organisation. Convention authorises the National Secretary, National President, NSW and Tasmanian Branch Secretaries to meet the NUR in order to discuss a closer working relationship with the objective of achieving amalgamation. Once it was pretty well established through preliminary discussions as to which unions would form the amalgamated union, in 1991 a joint working party was set up to oversee the amalgamation process and manage the complexities of bringing five separate unions and sets of rules to a workable point. From the outset, the stated intentions were to form a new ‘one big rail union’ based on worker-based representation, rather than a takeover of smaller unions. Thus, the task at hand and not insignificant challenge was to accommodate the previous practices and structures of the partner unions into a new structure that reflected the requirements and interests of all. The final outcome was a six-divisional structure and a set of rules that represented the various industry sectors. A paper presented to the ‘New Union’ meeting in AlburyWodonga in September 1991 by then ARU National Secretary Roger Jowett summarised the perceived

developments and shortcomings of the amalgamation process to that date. Against the backdrop of the most rapidly changing realignment of unions in the Australian labour movement’s history, he stated that: A number of features of our proposed new union are distinguishable. Our ambitious task of welding five public transport unions is not without its problems. Mistrust and suspicion have not been overcome, although in a number of instances the spark and promise which a new industry union holds out has been ignited.46 The paper also reiterated the long-held objective of the ARU of forming a genuine all-grades industry union: The ARU, since its formation in 1920, has held itself out as the all-grades industry union and has always been wary of sectionalism and craft attitudes. Suggestions of Federation or Federated structures have been viewed with suspicion by the ARU. In addition to industrial philosophical differences, the sheer number of unions involved has made the ‘New Union’ process arduous.47 On developments with other amalgamation partners, the report stated: At the National level, the ARU and AFULE have co-operated well, submitting joint reports to our members following the deputations to Federal Land Labour Transport Minister [Bob] Brown, and participating in the N.R.C and A.R.I.A.C forums effectively together.48 46 ARU National Secretary Roger Jowett, ‘New Union meeting’, 1-3 September, Clyde Cameron College, Albury Wodonga. 47 IBID. 48 IBID.

And on relations with the ATMOEA, it stated: The importance of breaking down barriers in order to achieve a genuine common purpose could be no better illustrated than by the example of the ARU and ATMOEA National Offices. The purchase of a joint property and daily contacts has meant the forging of co-operative and productive relationships.49 The report could not ignore the vexed issue of how to structure the amalgamated union. On this matter, Roger wrote that: By far the greatest proportion of our time has been devoted to looking at structures for the new union. This is not surprising given the history of our five unions. There will need to be concessions made by all unions, for any party attempting to carry their structures unchanged into the new union will place considerable pressure on a successful outcome. From the ARU’s perspective, the most distinctive organisational change is the Divisional basis of the new union. For our union this represents a momentous change from the basic all-grades/industrial organisational basis which the ARU has operated from for over seventy years. … An analysis of the potential size of each National Division in approximate terms reveals Administrative / Professional 3,760; Workshops etc. 7,880; Bus and Tram 12,430; Rail Operations 11,170; and Locomotive 10,480. We suggest there will need to be an overlap and an early multi-skilling of officers.

Thirty years later, when Roger reflected on the negotiations that led to the six-division structure of the present-day RTBU, he noted that: 49 IBID

A new amalgamated union is born!

The ARU rules outlined the authority and powers of sub-branches, sections, and divisions. Such structures operated at branch rather than national level. The decision makers within the ARU resided at Branch Council and national council levels. The structures of the new union, given the mixed all-grades and single occupational basis of the amalgamating partners were the most focused on and contentious issues faced by the new union negotiators. Generally there was goodwill amongst the negotiators as the rail, tram and bus industry participants were well known to each other and mutual respect enabled progress to be made.

The smaller unions were concerned about being swallowed up by the numerically larger ARU whereas the ARU was nervous about the potential limitations and constraints that a Divisional structure could involve. A key ingredient was the involvement of members in the decision-making process and at all levels of the proposed new union. The membership vote for the new union was overwhelmingly in favour; it was an undertaking whose time had come.50

50 Email interview with Roger Jowett, June 2023.

The amalgamation ballot Once the main arrangements for amalgamation were in place, it was decided to take the proposed amalgamation to a ballot of members in late 1992. Leading up to the ballot, the various union journals printed reports promoting the new union, and posters were produced where joint statements by leaders and members of the partner unions were promoting a ‘Yes’ vote.

National Secretary

Roger Jowett

NSW Branch Secretary

Harold Dwyer

Victorian Branch Secretary

Peter Bourke

Queensland Branch Secretary

Les Crofton

South Australian Branch Secretary

John Crossing

Tasmanian Branch Secretary

Jock Balfour

Western Australia

Bob Wells

Teething and housekeeping issues The period preceding the ballot was also a time for a series of meetings of workplaces and members across the various unions, to discuss, debate and promote the amalgamation. The ballot was overwhelmingly supported by members across the unions. The AFULE nationally recorded the most significant opposition, with 26 per cent of voters opposing amalgamation.

The amalgamation vote Inaugural Secretaries of the RTBU The transitional arrangement between the amalgamating unions saw an allocation of leadership positions based on the size of the partners, with the ARU occupying National and Branch Secretary positions, AFULE occupying National and Branch President positions, and ATMOEA occupying Branch Assistant Secretary positions. The structure and rules of the new union allowed for these positions to be contested at open union elections. Nonetheless, the leadership positions put in place at the time persisted for some time after amalgamation.

While the amalgamation process had secured agreement on the structures, required rules, and allocation of leadership positions within the new union, a number of other logistical issues remained to be resolved after amalgamation. There were issues of organising finances along the new Divisional lines, capitation fees, and sorting out the sale and distribution of properties held by the partner unions. Likewise, consideration at a national level was needed about how to support and subsidise smaller branches facing financial difficulties. While a part of the push for amalgamation promoted cost efficiency and effective sharing of resources, a number of issues tested some of the union finances and approaches. For example, former RTBU NSW Branch Secretary, Nick Lewocki, pointed out that the initial settling-in period of the amalgamation involved agreements to hold off selling certain properties until the property market was healthier, as well as acquiring new premises in Pitt Street, Sydney, which had to be purchased and refurbished to the satisfaction of all concerned. These outlays and expenditures seriously stretched the NSW Branch finances for a time, until the new union could start banking the benefits of a more rigorous and streamlined approach to financial management.

The amalgamation saw different parts of the new union come together to share resources.

4. WAS AMALGAMATION SUCCESSFUL?

RTBU National Leadership Since Amalgamation National Presidents

National Secretaries

Assistant National Secretaries

Ron Bradford (1993-1996)

Roger Jowett (1993-2005)

Allan Barden (2011-2021)

Harold Dwyer (1996-1998)

Robert Hayden (2005-2008)

Shayne Kummerfeld (2021-present)

Bob Plain (1998-2002)

Greg Harvey (2008-2009)

Robert Hayden (2002-2005)

Allan Barden (2009-2011)

Trevor Dobbyn (2005-2009)

Bob Nanva (2011-2019)

Ken Mason (2009-2011)

Mark Diamond (2019-present)

Owen Doogan (2011-2014) Phil Altieri (2014-2018) Shayne Kummerfeld (2018-2021) Luba Grigorovitch (2021-2022) Victor Moore (2022-present)

Post-amalgamation – Howard and WorkChoices

If the political and economic climate leading up to the amalgamation was turbulent, then the period following the amalgamation saw a seismic shift under the ground of the new union’s feet. Legislative changes instituted by the Federal Labor Government at the beginning of the 1990s permitted singleemployer agreements (Enterprise Bargaining) and non-union agreements. The resulting “fragmentation of bargaining practices … eroded the capacity of the ACTU to coordinate unions in the bargaining sector” because it had lost the “bargaining power to negotiate enterprise agreements”.51 Bigger challenges, however, were to come. With a change in Federal Government in 1996, a paradigm shift occurred in the way Australian 51 Briggs, 2004, p251.

society viewed unions. John Howard (Prime Minister 1996–2007) fostered an attitude that strong unions threatened Australia’s economic performance, rather than playing a beneficial role in the community. Roger Jowett said the cultural shift accompanying the Howard years, and its impact on the rail, tram and bus industries, was profound: The forces at work were more encompassing than a conservative Federal Government. There was the shock and awe era of the Kennett government in Victoria, which saw the rapid privatisation of all public transport in Victoria as the government launched a full frontal assault on unionism per se with the sudden withdrawal of payroll deductions. The ideology of deregulation, privatisation, and national competition policy impacted in varying

degrees on all major political parties. The Labor government in NSW in 1996 announced, without consultation, the greatest structural change the railway industry had ever experienced in that state. From a vertically integrated single rail system to a vertically separated passenger and freight system. It led to a rapid decline in safety, and it caused the deaths of rail workers and the travelling public. A subsequent royal commission and several safety inquiries resulted in a major reversal of earlier, severely flawed decisions. The Howard/Reith era threw up simultaneous challenges for the RTBU. Firstly, the fundamental right for unions to collectively bargain was challenged by the introduction of individual workplace agreements, which were given precedence over union-negotiated agreements. The environment of privatisation of national rail systems, especially the former Australian National Railways and the recently formed NRC resulted in severe attacks on the wages and conditions of rail workers in several branches. Several American regional rail operators were able to buy, at giveaway prices, state rail freight systems and the national passenger operator. These takeovers were accompanied by severe rationalisation of workers, accompanied by new US management with an ingrained hostility to unions. They were given a green light to bypass unions by the Reith Work Choices legislation, and the fear of job insecurity existed amongst the survivors of the rationalisation process. Union membership plummeted in several branches. For our union in many areas, these events took us back to the basics of union organising and regaining the trust and confidence of rail workers.

Kevin 07 and the GFC The RTBU was an enthusiastic contributor to the Your Rights at Work campaign to counter the Howard Government’s ideologically-driven ‘Work Choices’ agenda. In turn, the Your Rights @ Work campaign was central to the eventual downfall of the Howard Government, and the election of the Rudd Labor Government in 2007. After more than a decade in the political wilderness, the Labor Government rolled out an ambitious policy agenda - including the establishment of an emissions trading scheme to drive down Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The subprime mortgage crisis in the US financial collapse of the global financial system, however, threw the new government’s plans into disarray. Political infighting added to the sense of chaos, and in 2010 Rudd was deposed by Julia Gillard, who became Australia’s first female Prime Minister.

Collective bargaining was re-established, wages and conditions were gradually improved, and delegate and membership rebuilt. In an era of management and ownership churn, many workers understood from their first-hand experiences that the only constant was the determination of the union to fight for their interests irrespective of who the employer may be. The severity of the Reith Work Choices attacks on unionism, in violation of ILO conventions, inevitably led to a backlash and overreach best exemplified by the frontal assault of mercenaries and guard dogs emblematic of the Patrick’s waterfront dispute and the Miners Federation clashes with Rio Tinto in the NSW Hunter Valley.

The issues at stake were crystal clear for all unionists. If these bulwarks of unionism could be brought to their knees, no one would be safe. The RTBU solidarity actions were pivotal to successful outcomes to these disputes. The existence of the amalgamated RTBU enabled a timely, coordinated and unified response to the Howard/Reith attacks. It is unlikely that several branches and divisions would have survived without the existence of the RTBU and the ability to marshal resources and campaigns at branch and national level of the RTBU.52

52 Email interview with Roger Jowett, June 2023.

The RTBU was experiencing tough times as well. Having established QR National as a stand-alone freight business in 2004, the Bligh Government in Queensland privatised QR National and floated the business on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2010. The privatisation was vigorously opposed by the RTBU, and deeply angered Queensland RTBU members who had campaigned for the Bligh Government. The Bligh Government’s privatisation agenda played a significant role in its electoral wipe-out in 2012, but the new Queensland Government led by Campbell Newman took privatisation even further, selling off half the state’s remaining shares in QR National (by then re-branded as Aurizon) in 2013. The RTBU National Office was also about to run into some turbulent times. Roger Jowett stepped

down as National Secretary in 2005, after guiding the amalgamated union through its first 12 years of existence. The new National Secretary, Robert ‘Bob’ Hayden took over the reins just as the Howard Liberal Government was upping the ante on industrial relations. Howard’s controversial Work Choices legislation was introduced into Parliament on 2 November 2005, and passed on 2 December. The laws removed protections on unfair dismissal, and also removed the ‘no disadvantage test’ on collective agreements and workplace agreements, which gave workers the protection of the award safety net. Unions organised a massive national response to the new laws. The RTBU threw itself into the Your Rights at Work campaign - which has been described as “the most significant political campaign mounted by a nonparty political group in Australian history for its blend of television advertising, mobilising and grassroots organizing, web-based campaigning and televised national days of protest.”53 The success of the Your Rights at Work campaign not only played an important part in the election of the Rudd Labor Government in 2007, it showed what unions such as the RTBU could achieve when they adopted sophisticated approach to public campaigning and advocacy.

Bob Hayden stepped down as National Secretary in 2008, but continued to hold senior executive positions in the union – including a total of 17 years as NSW Locomotive Division Secretary. He was succeeded by Greg Harvey. A former terminal operator at Chullora, 53 Muir, K. “Your Rights at Work’ campaign: Australia’s ‘most sophisticated political campaign’”, in Labor History (US), 2010; 51(1):55-70, abstract.

Greg Harvey had been a National Organiser since 2001, and received the ACTU’s Organiser of the Year Award in 2005. By the time he took over as National Secretary, however, Greg was already battling with serious illness. He sadly passed away in June 2009, with Allan Barden stepping up to assume the role of National Secretary. Soon after, NSW State Secretary Nick Lewocki approached a young ministerial adviser from NSW, Bob Nanva, to join the union as an Organiser in the National Office, with a view to becoming a future National Secretary. It was a deliberate move to improve the way the union engaged at a political level - and a break from the past practice of finding union leaders exclusively from the ‘shop floor’. After serving an apprenticeship as Organiser, the RTBU National

Executive appointed Bob Nanva as National Secretary in 2011, with Allan Barden continuing on as Assistant National Secretary.

Abbott and the War on Unions By 2013 the Gillard Government had effectively disintegrated, and Gillard was removed in another back-room coup and replaced by Kevin Rudd. Rudd’s second prime ministership lasted just three months however, and Labor was swept from power at the 2013 federal election by a resurgent Coalition under Tony Abbott. A ruthless political operator in opposition, Abbott took the same divisive approach to government, and quickly set about creating a political war with the trade union

movement. Revelations of financial mismanagement and corruption inside the Health Service Union gave Abbott the excuse he needed to launch a full-scale attack, and by March 2014 Abbott had established the Trade Union Royal Commission under Justice Dyson Heydon to pry into the affairs of unions across the country. The Royal Commission failed to find anything of substance, but it served its purpose well - providing months of tabloid fodder that allowed Abbott and the conservative media to demonise the trade union movement and vilify union leaders. It also led to the establishment of the Registered Organisations Commission in 2017 - a regulatory body specifically to enforce compliance activities on the union movement.

elected officials also realised they had to respond to the reputational damage caused by the Royal Commission and the relentless attacks on unions from the media. A new national style guide was developed to give the RTBU a professional new look, and the union adopted the phrase ‘Union and Proud’ to show it would not be intimidated by anti-worker forces. The RTBU not only survived this bruising period, it emerged stronger and more united by the experience. By 2017 the Union was ready to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the most iconic transport dispute in Australian history - the Great strike of 1917. The 2017 RTBU National Council in Sydney showcased the role of the modern RTBU as a significant player in the Australia industrial and political landscape.

In 2015 the privatised rail freight juggernaut Aurizon launched an audacious legal bid to terminate a dozen enterprise agreements and throw almost its entire workforce back onto Award wages and conditions. Fair Work Commissioner Graeme Watson, who later took a job as a political staffer for the Coalition Government, sided with Aurizon and delivered a landmark verdict that opened the door for employers to terminate their Enterprise Agreements virtually on a whim. Suddenly employers had a major new weapon to use in enterprise bargaining negotiations.

Automation, casualisation and the gig economy

The RTBU was never called up to the Royal Commission, but the threat of being targeted served as an important reminder to ensure that the union’s internal governance structures were bullet-proof. Bob Nanva spearheaded a project to modernise the union’s financial processes and procedures, and to ensure the union had a sound financial base. The Aurizon decision was used to galvanise members, and to refocus on building industrial strength from the ground up. The

The rise of the so-called gig economy presented a new challenge to transport workers. The ride-share app Uber saw the taxi industry under siege from platform workers who existed completely outside the regulated economy - with no minimum pay, no benefits and no job security. Politicians like then NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance hailed these changes as an opportunity to eliminate unions from the transport industry, and to get rid of government-employed

The rail, tram and bus industries were also undergoing profound changes. New technology was being rolled out at a breathtaking pace, requiring workers to continually re-skill and learn new processes. Fulltime jobs were being replaced by casual jobs, and then the rise of labour hire saw jobs increasingly being outsourced to third-party companies who paid their workers less.

transport workers altogether. “In 10-15 years time government will not be in the provision of transport services,” he claimed, “ it will all be on-demand, private sector driven, underpinned by innovation in technology.”54 In 2019 Bob Nanva resigned, and Mark Diamond was appointed by the National Executive to the position of National Secretary. Allan Barden also retired, with Shayne Kummerfeld taking over as Assistant National Secretary. In his speech to the 2019 National Council dinner, Mark Diamond laid down a marker for the tone of his leadership by declaring “here’s a message for Tory politicians and for aggressive employers: if you do not respect us, you will fear us.”55 As the Federal Coalition Government cycled through leaders - from Abbott to Malcom Turnbull, and then from Turnbull to Scott Morrison - the real wages of workers steadily declined. Frustration with the Morrison Government grew following the botched response to the 2019 bushfires, then the bungled rollout of vaccines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. As the 2022 federal election drew near, the RTBU launched a national campaign to put a focus on the need for investment in transport infrastructure and services, along with better job security and better pay in the rail, tram and bus industries. The RTBU’s national Put Transport in the Fast Lane campaign

54 Andrew Constance, quoted in “Tech will end government supplied transport: NSW Minister Andrew Constance”, Australian Financial Review, 20 March 2017 (see https://www.afr.com/ technology/tech-will-end-government-supplied-transport-nswminister-andrew-constance-20170315-guydph ) 55 Mark Diamond, speech to the 2019 RTBU National Council dinner, (see https://www.rtbu.org.au/respect_us_or_fear_us )

included an online petition and a pledge for federal election candidates to sign. On the ground, the RTBU provided support for individual candidates in key marginal seats, and mobilised members to campaign for a change in government. The 2022 federal election subsequently saw the Morrison Government turfed out, and the Albanese Government elected with a clear mandate to get wages moving again. Federal Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke moved swiftly to introduce the new government’s first tranche of industrial relations reforms, including laws to stop companies like Aurizon from terminating their enterprise agreements as a bargaining tactic. New laws are currently before the Federal Parliament to close the loopholes that allow labour hire operators to undercut the pay and conditions of permanent workers, and strengthen protections for workers in the so-called ‘gig economy’. The RTBU is now well-placed to continue its influential role in policy development through its strong relationships with members of the government and through its active role in ACTU committees.

The RTBU has also benefited from having access to a greater pool of resources. It has used its scale to expand the union’s presence into new areas - most notably in the purchase in August 2023 of a Victorian-based Registered Training Organisation, Training Ahead Australia. The RTBU intends to expand TAA’s operations across the country, with a view to the organisation becoming the training and medical provider of choice for the rail industry. The partnership between the RTBU and TAA has the potential to dramatically improve the standard of training in the rail sector.

Reflections on amalgamation, 30 years on

union survived and to some extent, triumphed in these conflicts.

The policy and legislative platforms of the Howard Government and its WorkChoices industrial approach directly threatened unions and their existence. Similarly, the Abbott-era attack on the legitimacy of trade unions placed the movement under unprecedented scrutiny. The subsequent Your Rights at Work campaign that resulted in the electoral defeat of the Howard Government, relied on strong unions acting in unison.

In the amalgamation’s first years, many members were suspicious or at least cautious of whether the amalgamation had been the prudent move to make. Many had difficulties letting go of their attachment and loyalty to their original union. However, with time, and as more members came to know only the RTBU as their union, many of these historical suspicions and obstacles continue to dissipate and fade. The focus shifts more towards unifying and strengthening the amalgamated union, rather than nostalgically looking back to ‘the good old days’. This is a generational development, and was never going to happen instantly once the new union was formed.

Some salient points emerge in relation to the role played by union amalgamation. Firstly, it is difficult to imagine that some of the smaller unions could have survived WorkChoices on their own. And secondly, the timing of the 1993 RTBU amalgamation, a few years prior to the election of the Howard Government, meant that the PTU/RTBU and other consolidated unions were capable not only of weathering WorkChoices, but also (ultimately) able to push back and defeat these anti-union laws. Equally, the politically-motivated Trade Union Royal Commission and the establishment of the Registered Organisations Commission put enormous pressure on the governance structures of organisations that were still, to a significant extent, reliant on the volunteer labour of their members. This pressure was felt even more keenly on smaller unions that did not have a team of professional staff to manage their increasingly complex and time-consuming legal obligations. It is a matter for speculation how much damage and how many survivors there may have been in the smaller, more vulnerable unions under these concerted pressures. What is known is that the amalgamated

Bob Proctor summarised some of this shift in thinking: The feeling on the ground amongst the membership was split fairly evenly in NSW – those of us who knew that this gave as the best opportunity financially to keep going in what was to become a greatly changing industry, and those who couldn’t stand the thought of no longer being autonomous, as we had been as the AFULE. In hindsight both groups were correct in their various beliefs. I look back at how the Industry has changed so much (after thirty years I can recognise very little of it from the AFULE days) but I think the economies that were introduced with amalgamation are now beginning to bear fruit. We may have amalgamated on mis-information (as did many other small unions) at the time, but I think now that this decision has proven to be the correct one in many ways.

The rail industry now is a far cry from when I joined the footplate over forty years ago. The culture of Enginemen has completely changed.56 Assessing the success of amalgamation is inevitably problematic. Membership numbers are not an adequate gauge of success or otherwise, given the massive changes in the industry and its workforce over this time. Similarly, wins or losses in particular industrial or social campaigns can be influenced also by local factors, external forces and circumstances, and leadership or uptake by members of particular issues. Nevertheless, the amalgamated union weathered the storms of initial distrust and caution, building its own culture and forging new traditions. The RTBU continues to have a relatively high union density and membership compared to many other unions, and continues to unify its functions and resources in defending and extending working conditions. Indeed, the RTBU can rightly claim to have achieved some major victories and increased influence in areas such as safety in public transport and freight. For example, the success of the NSW Branch in forcing the NSW Government to modify its unsafe New Intercity Fleet trains was built on the solidarity of members across different divisions throughout the most recent Sydney Trains / NSW Trains EA negotiations. Similarly, the national union swung in behind the SA/NT Branch’s campaign to undo the privatisation of South Australia’s passenger train and tram services, leading to ground-breaking decision by the Malinauskas Labor Government earlier this year to return these services to public hands.

56 Email interview with Bob Proctor, March 2023.

The modern RTBU has the professionalism and scale to be an influential voice on the national stage.

The decision by State and Territory Transport Ministers in July 2023 to conduct a review of the Rail Safety National Law came about after intense lobbying from the RTBU, using all of its leverage as a national industry union. The development of the RTBU Cares fundraising brand has seen members from right across the union help each other financially through tragedy and tough times. And most recently, the union’s partnership with Registered Training Organisation Training Ahead Australia (TAA) has changed the game for training in the rail, tram and bus industries – opening the door for members across the country to get access to get union-quality workplace training. None of this would be possible if the RTBU’s predecessor unions were still operating alone. Perhaps most importantly, we must ask if - given the massive political and industrial changes of the past 30 years - would the RTBU’s predecessor unions have

survived this period intact on their own? In our view, it is highly likely that some would not have survived, and highly unlikely that the others would have been able to continue as effective advocates for their members. In short, amalgamation was a necessary step that ensured Australia’s rail and public transport unions were able to survive the storms of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and successfully position the unions for the new challenges that workers face today. As an all-grades national industry union, the RTBU has both the professionalism and the scale to be an influential voice on the national stage, and to make forward-looking strategic decisions like purchasing a Registered Training Organisation. But perhaps most importantly, it has retained a democratic structure and a powerful grass-roots delegate network which ensures that all members have a direct say in their union. It truly is a union run by transport workers, for transport workers.

Looking to the future The thirty years since amalgamation have seen many adjustments to the way the union operates, and the future will inevitably see more changes. Indeed, the future of any union in Australia will in many ways come down to its strategic creativity and innovation, and its flexibility in meeting current and future industry issues. It will come down to leadership and organisational structures that are relevant and inclusive and, perhaps most importantly, that actively engage the membership in the day-to-day governance and operations of the union. To that end, the 30th anniversary of amalgamation is a timely moment for the RTBU. It is not the brief of this booklet to review the union or its operations, but present and future elected officials and members will inevitably reflect on the lessons

of the amalgamation process, and consider how the union can continue to evolve with the changing times. They will ask whether the structures and processes put in place at the time of amalgamation still meet current requirements, or if they now need an overhaul. Do the Divisional, Branch and National rules and structures need to be updated? And are there further opportunities for the RTBU to work more closely with other unions that cover workers in the rail, tram and bus industries? In his editorial for the RTBU’s quarterly national member magazine, Transport NOW, National Secretary Mark Diamond made the following observation: For most of us, our 30th birthday marks a turning point in life. It’s often a time when people reflect on who they are and the values that are important to them, and start to feel more secure about their place in the world.

In many ways, the RTBU’s 30th anniversary represents a similar milestone – a point where we can say that our amalgamated, all-grades union has reached a point of maturity and confidence.57 A mature union is one that is prepared to be staunch under pressure, yet can be flexible when it needs to change. A confident union is one that is prepared to make tough decisions in the best interests of its members. The RTBU has shown that it is all of these things. What’s more, RTBU members have shown they have the imagination, passion and commitment to ensure their union continues to thrive for many years to come.

57 Mark Diamond, ‘Just a Sec’, in Transport NOW, April 2023, p2 (see https://issuu.com/rtbuaus/docs/transport_now_april_2023 )