Mr Campbell may head Council of Trade Unions

Press, 30 December 1985, Page 24

Mr Campbell may head Council of Trade Unions

By PATRICIA HERBERT The unions, should they unite under a single banner as proposed, will have within their grasp the most powerful elected position outside Government — and the smart money is on Rob Campbell. He is recognised as the obvious choice for president of the Council of Trade Unions, should he want the job. The C.T.U. would supplant the Federation of Labour and the Combined State Unions and would be open to those unions not now affiliated to either body. The proposal is that it shoula speak for all New Zealand’s estimated 650,000 wage and salary earners. Its size alone will limit the field for the presidency to the well-known and the broadly acceptable. Mr Campbell has a high public profile as a news media favourite and through his regular Sunday newspaper column, and he presents well on television; unaggressive and good-humoured. Also, as secretary of the newly-formed, 65,000 strong Distribution Workers’ Federation, he can already claim to lead one in 10 of the C.T.U.’s potential membership. He admits that he would like to play a role in the C.T.U. leadership but would probably defer to the present secretary of the F.0.L., Ken Douglas.

If. Mr Douglas stood, he would certainly be a contender. He is the anchorman at the F.O.L. and commands great respect in union circles but against him he has what a close unionist friend refers to as “the bogey” — his involvement with the Socialist Unity Party. To pretend that this would not scare off support, particularly in the more conservative provincial areas, would be to pretend that National’s dancing Cossacks and persistent references to Labour’s “Communist fellow travellers” have had no effect.

Mr Douglas is apparently aware of this ana relaxed about it but, while it might rule out the presidency for him, it would probably not prevent him from taking the secretaryship of the C.T.U. and it is this post that the pundits are picking him for.

The pick for vice-presi-dent is someone from the public sector and the names now being bandied about are Ron Burgess, the former chairman of the C.S.U. and general secretary of the Post Office Union, and Colin Hicks.

Mr Burgess is the betterknown of the two and would probably have wider appeal across the board because he has experience in both blue

collar and white collar unions, but he is nearing retirement.

Mr Hicks, who has been president of the Public Service Association since early 1983, succeeded Mr Burgess this year as head of the C.S.U. and in this dual role is beginning to achieve greater personal prominence. This can only continue and must eventually make him the logical candidate, although he has now no particular ambitions regarding the C.T,U. The C.T.U. proposal was launched by the P.S.A. in 1982 and a working party was set up to do the ground work.

The then Muldoon Government provided much of the initial impetus by welding unionists against it as they joined forces to fight off what they perceived as a sustained attack on the trade union movement. But there is a debt also to the president of the F.0.L., Jim Knox. Under his stewardship, the F.O.L. and the C.S.U. have learned to work together — a practice that was frowned upon before Mr Knox.

For these reasons and others, support for . the C.T.U. steadily gathered momentum in the declining Muldoon years, but the decision was made to put it on the back-burner for the 1984 election campaign. Mr Douglas feels in retrospect that this was a mistake. He says there are moments in history when things are right for change and that the best opportunity may now have been missed. Not least this is because the fact of a sympathetic Government has disguised for some the need for reform.

However, significant progress was made in 1985. A two-day constitutional meeting was held in Wellington early in the year to test commitment and to discuss organisational details. This resulted in a final, revision of the draft rules — a 16page booklet now being circulated to all unions. Then, in May, the F.O.L. formally voted its support for the C.T.U. and set 1986 as the deadline for decision.' I Ms Sonja Davies, the vice-president of the F.O.L. and leading player in the push to get the C.T.U. off the ground, hopes it will be established by mid-1987. Her optimism is shared by Mr Burgess and Mr Hicks, but among the private sector unions the mood is less confident. There, Mr Douglas’s reluctant scepticism is more the norm. The doubts are easily justified, among other things by the smaller number of unions which have so far balloted their members on

the issue of C.T.U. affiliation.

At the last count, there were 10 in all and only three from the F.O.L. fold, one of which — the Watersiders — voted not to join. Their secretary, Sam Jennings, said the vote went against the C.T.U. in all 19 of New Zealand’s ports and that the people were not happy at the prospect of being tied up with office workers — a prejudice many in the P.S.A. are known to return in kind. Another of the three, the Engineers, showed support but of a distinctly tepid nature. They said they would join the C.T.U. provided it did not cost them too much and have since been assured that the fee will be about $2.50 a person. Only the Shop Employees showed real enthusiasm, recording only one negative vote.

Other unions which have voted to join are: The Post Primary Teachers’ Association, the Bank Officers’ Union, the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutes, the Kindergarten Teachers’ Association, the Railway Tradesmen’s Association, the Locomotive Engineers’ Association and the South Island Fire Brigades Union. Most are small and most are in the public sector where a question mark hangs over the union giant — the P.S.A. Its leaders may be at the vanguard of the C.T.U. but the membership has repeatedly resisted their blandishments regarding affiliation with the F.O.L. and there is no guarantee that they will not take the same attitude towards the C.T.U.

Mr Hicks acknowledges that there were some “fairly strong objections” when the idea was first mooted, but is confident that it has since won more general acceptance. Because the P.S.A. is so big, it is vital to the credibility of the C.T.U. and much depends on the way Mr Hicks handles the issue. Thus far, he has handled it well; arguing the case persuasively and with tact.

One crack it seems the C.T.U will not be able to smooth over, however, is the bitterness between the secretary of the Electrical Workers’ Union, Tony Neary, and the F.O.L. Mr Neary led his members out of the federation because he was critical of its policies and because he felt it no longer reflected the opinion of the rank-and-file. He walked out because he perceived “an obvious drift to the Left” and after he had unsuccessfully contested the presidency against Mr Knox. He reckons that if he was to ballot his union on the C.T.U. now, the vote would be lost unless it was accompanied by a strong executive recommendation for amalgamation. This, it appears, will not be forthcoming. Mr Neary has consistently said that he would have to be convinced that the C.T.U. would be run democratically before he would join. He has since defined this to mean that voting for the top jobs be done across the membership as a whole rather than on a union by union basis, as proposed. The process will be that the Engineers, for example, vote for the candidate they prefer and that all 51,000 of their votes are then given to the person of their choice. Effectively, it will be a two-tier system. Mr Neary would prefer one tier so

that ballot papers are sent to each C.T.U. member and the votes recorded individually at head office. His chances of being elected would be greatly enhanced under such a regime because the voting would be less susceptible to direction and lobbying. As it is, he says there is “not a hope” of any representative from his union being elected to the leadership. Among the C.T.U.’s supporters, the “wharfies” decision has provoked little reaction and even less concern. The feeling is that they will come in when the new organisation is up and running. There is also the argument that they are a traditional union reflecting more the unionism of the 1960 s than the 1980 s. Others likely to return anti-votes for much the same reasons are the seamen and the National Union of Railwaymen.

At the F.O.L. conference, N.U.R. delegates were concerned that small unions would be swamped in the C.T.U. by the big six: the Engineers’ Union, the Clerical Workers’ Union, the Hotel Workers’ Union, the Distribution Workers’ Federation, the Post Office Union and the P.S.A.

It was felt that they would use their voting strength to get their representatives into the official posts and obviously to an extent this must happen at least in the early years and until a greater degree of mutual trust has been allowed to develop. The C.T.U. constitution provides for one person-one vote so that a union with 205 members will have 205 votes and a union with 50,000 members, 50,000 votes. It also provides for block voting. The day-to-day decisions will be made by a national executive comprising the president, the vice-presi-dent, the secretary and 12 or 13 others — one for each 100,000 members. They will be elected by electoral colleges, groupings of unions which together have about the same total membership. The groups will be revised as the need arises to keep the numbers even but provisionally there are six

They are: • GROUP ONE: Clerical, Banking Insurance, Local Body Officers, Legal, Accounting, Advertising, Journalists, Actors, Musicians, Projectionists and Stage Hands. 104,489 members.

• GROUP TWO: Carpenters, Electricians, Engine Drivers, Engineers, Boilermakers, Moulders, Furniture Trades, Painters, Printers, Photoengravers, Plumbers, Stonemasons, Coachworkers, Boat Builders and Footwear Workers. 104,421 members. • GROUP THREE: Meat Workers, Fish and Oyster Workers, Brewery Workers, Baking and Biscuit Workers, Flourmilling, - - Fertiliser Workers, Food and Chemical Workers, Dairy Factory Workers, Sugar Workers, Woollen Mills, Tobacco Workers, Tailors and Clothing Workers, Laundry Workers, Cement Workers, Rubber Workers, Paint and Varnish Workers, Photo Processing, Pulp and Paper, Hotel Workers, Labourers, Saddlers and Sack Workers. 158,529 members.

• GROUP FOUR: Drivers, Tramway Workers, Shop Employees, Butchers, Stores and Warehouse Workers, Cleaners, Caretakers, Security Workers, Watersiders, Seamen, Cooks and Stewards? Timber Workers and

Harbour Board Employees, 104,826 members.

• GROUP FIVE: Post Office, Teaching Service, Hospitals, Fire Brigades, Airlines and Mines. 102,472 members.

• GROUP SIX: P.S.A. and Workers Union, Railways. 104,396 members.

Each contains one of the “big six” with the Distribution Workers’ Federation featuring in Group Four under the titles of its member unions — drivers, shop employees and Canterbury stores. It is expected, however, that the six will furnish only one executive from each college with the other unions running an informal roster system for the other place.

Also against the potential for domination, is the fact that the C.T.U. will provide for greater regional representation at central level than is available either in the C.S.U. or the F.O.L. The country will be divided into six regions each of which will be guaranteed a member on the policy-making body — the national council. Ms Davies believes this is the most exciting contribution the C.T.U has to make to New Zealand unionism not only because the provinces tend now to be badly served but also because it will allow more scope for women and minority groups to make their presence felt That they may be swallowed up in the larger organisation and lose their voice has been a recurrent concern and is recognised in the working party’s recommendation that the interests of women unionists and other minorities should be the specific responsibility of a senior elected C.T.U. officer.

It is likely that this will eventually be honoured in the election of a woman to one of the top three positions but, at the outset, that would involve a dangerous tokenism. Women should be able to expect direct representations, however, on the executive.

This being so, the president of the Bank Officers’ Union, Ms Angela Foulkes, must be well-placed as would Ms Liz Tennent of the Clerical Workers’ Union except that she has her sights trained on a seat in Parliament

The most compelling argument for the C.T.U. is that the divisions which now exist are wasteful of resources and therefore selfdefeating. A single organisation would, it is felt wield more clout in its dealings both with the Government and with employers. But, even as the first steps are being taken towards consolidation, the splintering process is continuing. Mr Neary’s “group of 10” is a persistent reminder that the need for change is pressing. It began last year as a loose coalition of unions outside the F.O.L. Since then, however, it has acquired new member unions and with them the trappings of permanence and it plans to hold its first annual conference this year. Given the known discontent within the F.0.L., this must constitute a threat Certainly unionists recognise that if the group continues to attract support at the rate it has been, it will have to be accorded the same status as the F.O.L. and the C.S.U. So for the union movement, 1986 is a watershed year. It is. poised to go in one of two directions — either it organises into one body, the C.T.U., or it .risks further factionalism. L