Page 5 - Newsletter#12 FinalFinalVersionPDF_Neat

The line is constantly pushed that the Patricks dispute in The R&F Newsletter doesn’t claim to know which view is
1998 was about waterfront industry reform. In reality, it the more correct of the two. However, we are in a position
was driven by pure anti-union ideology on the part of the to comment on the way in which such decisions are
Howard/Reith government with the intent of destroying made. Despite views to the contrary, under its rules the
the MUA and driving a stake into the heart of the trade MUA has a devolved management structure in which the
union movement as a whole. National Office provides support to the branches, not the
other way around.
Positive and constructive reform benefiting the nation, the
industry, and the ‘wharfies’ was achieved on the In other words, a bottom-up approach adopted, indeed
Australian waterfront during the years 1989-1992 under demanded by virtue of the WWF being a federation of,
the auspices of the Waterfront Industry Reform Authority originally, port-based branches and subsequently, State
(WIRA) process. Too long to discuss here but forms part based branches. This is the direct opposite of branch
of our story on Tas Bull, one of the great leaders of the management within the SUA where decisions were very
union at a time of momentous change. much imposed from the top down.

Major changes were also occurring at the time in respect In the last 20 years, despite its rules structure, the MUA
of port authority operations around the country and where as moved far closer to the SUA system of centralised
ACTU affiliate unions largely agreed to transfer their port control from the top down than is healthy for the
authority members to the WWF as part of the move development and progress of the organisation and, while
towards industry unionism. – it was not a matter of the not part of this story, has very much led to the cronyism
Commission favouring the maritime unions as Carr and patronage that has pervaded the whole of the union
suggested in respond to his life membership award. for far too long.

Nor should it be understood by reading Carr’s comments The branch legal officer’s position is clearly a professional
that in signing-up port authority employees, the WWF appointment, and in this case the National Legal Director
were organising non-union areas. Virtually all port should be involved in the appointment, including in
authority employees were members of their respective determining job descriptions and selection criteria against
unions and in many cases, proudly so. Nevertheless, it which all candidates are assessed by a selection panel.
was the general view of the ACTU affiliates that the future
industrial interests of this relatively small group of If there is a selection panel, it is assumed at least one
employees would be best served by the one, single senior national official sits on the panel along with the
industry union. legal director. Where appointments relate to branch
positions, the relevant Branch Secretary should also be a
Despite many port authority rank and file members member of the selection panel as well as, being involved
becoming effective MUA delegates, none has ever been in reviewing the job description and the selection criteria.
given the opportunity to move up the leadership ladder as
part of further integrating port workers into the union as The Branch Secretary is responsible for running the
intended by Tas Bull and John Coombs. This aspiration branch and responsibilities of this kind form an essential
went completely out of the window with the ascension of element of the Branch Secretary’s own personal
Padraig Crumlin, and the union has lost as a result. development and growth in an important leadership
position within the union.
Footnote: The right to MUA representation was initially
excluded from some ports, for example, Cairns and This is a simple reform which the National Secretary
Mackay because ownership rested with the Qld Airports should be capable of executing for the future. If not, the
Corporation which entity didn’t fit the description of a port National Council should assert itself. This is why National
authority. That is no longer the situation and should be Council exists with the majority of its members
further investigated along with other Australian ports representing the interests of its branches. This is the very
excluded at that time. essence of a devolved management structure.

The publishers acknowledge other contributors to the This is not about pitting national officers against branch
Newsletters in this edition. officers, there is little if any reason, why younger national
officers should not support such a reform. Most of them
Branch Appointments.. have just recently been promoted from their branch
positions and should clearly see the merits of the reform
Lastly, the latest edition of the Qld Branch News also proposed.
carried a story about the forthcoming employment of a
new Branch Legal Officer. The Acting Branch Secretary Other Issues.
wrote a fulsome appreciation of the work of the employee
who previously undertook much of this work and who is Outlining the Cruise industry progress, it was good to see
to be replaced by the new appointment. Upon reading the the response to our previous enquiries and suggestions
report a reader wouldn’t be blamed for thinking that the in establishing a task force to seek MUA Seafarers work
Acting Branch Secretary was not altogether pleased with in this lucrative market for Cruise lines.
the national decision to replace the existing branch
employee. Page.2