Peak trade union bodies in the form of regional trades and labour councils have been of increasing interest in the industrial relations literature in Australia. Ellem and Shields' (2004) theoretical framework for the analysis of this form of mobilisation provides a structure for conceptualising these bodies, which are in Australia the lowest level of peak union organisation. This paper considers the application of one part of this framework to the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council (GTLC), based in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria, during the 1980s when the GTLC was arguably coming to its peak influence. This organisation's involvement in industrial relations illustrates local employment structures as a factor in the particular relationships which regional trades and labour councils develop.

Introduction

The Gippsland Trades and Labour Council (GTLC) is a regional peak union body in the industrialised region of the Latrobe Valley, Victoria. Its fortunes have risen and fallen along with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) the state-owned monopoly with responsibility for electricity generation and distribution, and for decades the dominant regional employer.

     Peak union bodies can be defined as 'permanent inter-union organisations directed at furthering defined or assumed common interests or objectives by means of jointly determined strategies'.^[1] Such peak union bodies offer a means for unions to look beyond the individual ­ to forgo parochialism and isolationism in order to work with others to make 'common cause'.^[2] Such bodies, in the form of state and regional labour councils, have played significant roles in fostering and sustaining the development of Australian trade unionism, and there has been participation in and critical support for them by unions. The question of why unions choose to affiliate with a regional Trades and Labour Council (RTLC) opens a debate not only on the benefits of 'power to' resulting from 'power over' within such a context, but also on the rationale behind the formation of such bodies and their role/s. The theoretical framework proposed by Ellem and Shields, building on Briggs, recognises both the actual and the potential variety of roles of peak bodies, as agents of mobilisation, exchange and regulation.^[3]

     The role of the GTLC in the industrial arena with the SECV as the major employer for the region has been intertwined across the three modes of agency ­ mobilisation, exchange and regulation, with its influence almost seamlessly crossing the loose boundaries between them in regard to the SECV workforce. Any discussion of the role and activities of the GTLC cannot be explained without understanding the relationships which existed between the unions and the SECV, and the industrial history of the Latrobe Valley, which was centred around the SECV.

     With this in mind, this paper first briefly discusses the theoretical framework of Ellem and Shields, then describes the background to the industrial relations within the Latrobe Valley and the SECV, the major parameters of the physical space within which the GTLC operated. This is followed by an account of the role of the GTLC in industrial agency during the 1980s with the SECV. The conclusion examines the operations of the GTLC at this time within the particular environment existing in the Latrobe Valley.^[4]

Theoretical framework

The formation and role of peak union bodies have been postulated to be the result of such factors as the determining influence of the state, the role of far-sighted union leaders, and the rational mediation of existing sectional interests, resulting in the 'rational pursuit by workers, unions and their leaders of an unproblematic common cause'.^[5]

     Briggs,^[6] however, proposes that the formation of peak bodies lies more with the unique capacity of a union federation to act as an agent of mobilisation, exchange and collective goods/service provision. Thus a peak body's power results from 'its ability to mediate and reconfigure the relations of autonomy and dependence which exist within the union movement and between trade unions and other social forces'.^[7] The benefits to an individual affiliate must be seen to outweigh the potential disadvantage of ceding what may be significant autonomy, in mobilisation and exchange in particular, for some unions.

     Ellem and Shields have built on this framework and produced a model for peak union agency that describes three possible types of agency (mobilisation, exchange and regulation), which can each manifest itself in three modes (industrial, political and social). The matrix which the model produces is useful in the analysis and categorisation of the actual and possible range of activities and roles for peak bodies, thus enabling a better understanding of such peak union bodies' existence, diversity and impact.^[8]

     Local peak bodies may be more influential at the local level at a given point in time than state or national peak bodies, because of the locally specific nature of the labour market. This may be particularly true in areas where specific employers or industries dominate, because union rules may 'shape the spatial extent of local or regional labor markets'^[9] and foster place consciousness. For regional or local peak bodies, broad community consent and support for their legitimacy is particularly necessary. These bodies have greater scope for, and relevance of, interaction with the community in general.^[10]

     A peak union council's powers as an agent of mobilisation, exchange and regulation are interdependent. Capacity and legitimacy to act as an agent of mobilisation gives perceived authority to act as an agent of exchange; conversely, recognition and thus legitimacy in exchange relations reinforces capacity and ability to act as an agent of mobilisation. Strength as an agent of mobilisation and exchange similarly reflects on the opportunities to influence regulation.

     However, the formation, survival and effectiveness of a peak body rely on creating and maintaining a power balance within the organisation so that the legitimacy of 'power over' is based on the acceptance of 'power for'. This negotiated compromise will be specific to each peak body and is dependant on a particular combination of historical and geographical factors. This is demonstrated in the relationships which the GTLC developed in the Latrobe Valley and with the SECV in particular.^[11]

     The Ellem and Shields framework produces a matrix which analyses and categorises the possible roles and activities which may be undertaken by peak bodies. It provides a useful and logical means of examining the ways in which particular peak union bodies have operated within various timeframes, and for linking the factors which may be behind these activities. It serves also to prompt consideration of the possibilities for change. A limitation of the model is the need to understand and locate peak council behaviour within a particular local context.

     While the GTLC has operated across the three types of agency, and within all three modes proposed by the Ellem and Shields framework, this paper will be restricted to a discussion of its activities within industrial mobilisation and exchange as they related specifically to the principal Latrobe Valley employer, the SECV, during the 1980s.

The Latrobe Valley and the SECV

The Latrobe Valley is a diverse area about 150 km east of Melbourne, part of a region rich in natural resources. The best known is the extensive brown coal deposits which provide the raw material for the majority of Victoria's electricity generation. While the first power stations were built at the Yallourn site from the 1920s, the establishment of newer and larger power stations in the post war years established the Latrobe Valley as a new industrial region.^[12]

     During the early years of the SECV, the Latrobe Valley and in particular Yallourn as the SECV's model township, acted as a bounded and undisturbed area which shaped the industrial landscape that was to remain in place in future decades. Workers constructed a particular identity for themselves as they attempted to adjust to a relationship with an employer which dominated the region and this was reflected in the development of workplace industrial relations.^[13]

     The SECV became a paternalistic and welfarist employer of a large and mainly migrant workforce, providing its own training and internal career paths. Its policies on employment organisation and practice, reproduction of the labour force and community planning and development reflected centralised and institutionalised labour relations. These were imposed on its workforce both in the workplace and in its model township, Yallourn, in an effort to achieve unity through social structure.^[14]

     The power generating activities of the SECV, a state-owned monopoly which was tied to its Latrobe Valley location because of the raw product which was central to its core business, were critical to the State of Victoria. The concentration of power generating assets increased the bargaining power of the Latrobe Valley workers and unions, who were able to use pressure at the local level helped by strong workplace organisation, as well as the centralised arbitration system, to achieve high rates of pay and allowances as well as shorter working hours and a range of restrictive recruitment and manning practices. These factors, combined with allegations of low productivity and ongoing demarcation disputes, perpetuated the image of the Latrobe Valley as an area high in industrial conflict,^[15] with the unions described as 'powerful, militant and somewhat intransigent'.^[16] This image has persisted, although not in accord with the reality,^[17] in no small part due to the media, since 'a strike involving the power industry, generation or construction, has a high public and political profile; and this must be seen as part of the backdrop to industrial relations in the region'.^[18]

     The dominance of the SECV in local employment was demonstrated by its having over seven times more employees than the next largest employer in the region. This impacted on the structure of employment in the Latrobe Valley, which was considered to be unique, having a dominance of public sector employment, and a work environment which specialised in electricity generation and construction.^[19]

     The level of worker solidarity in the Latrobe Valley was high, with a well organised workforce which had developed a reputation for collective strength and militancy, both within the power industry and in the community at large. The SECV was a union stronghold for both white- and blue-collar unions, with union density in the SECV estimated at over 95 percent and obtained via a de facto closed shop arrangement covering both manual employees and a majority of the non-manual workforce.^[20] A principal means by which the relevant trade unions associated and communicated with each other was via the regional peak union council, the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council (GTLC), whose role can only be understood within the particular industrial context and relations of the Latrobe Valley.

The Gippsland Trades and Labour Council

The Gippsland Trades and Labour Council (GTLC) has a long involvement in the Latrobe Valley community, and its greatest area of influence and action has been within the industrial mode of operation. While the GTLC has operated across the range of employers in the Latrobe Valley, its activities were focused on interaction with unions operating in the SECV, which became a centre for industrial activity due to the size, complexity and union strength of its workforce.

     The Gippsland Trades and Labour Council (GTLC) was established as the Yallourn Trades and Labour Council (YTLC) in 1932. Originally established to deal with union matters in the SECV's Yallourn works area, the geographic coverage of the YTLC expanded as the SECV moved out of Yallourn and into other locations in the Latrobe Valley. This prompted a change of name in 1947 to the Central Gippsland (and still later to just Gippsland) Trades and Labour Council. Until the end of the 1960s the GTLC was mainly a forum for SECV maintenance workers unions, but during the late 1970s and 1980s it reinvented itself with a stronger central organisation and commenced coordinating inter-union industrial action.^[21]

     By the end of 1985, sixteen of the twenty unions then operating in the SECV were affiliated, and an SECV subcommittee provided a focus and coordinating role for union organisation and activity within the SECV. Overall union density in the SECV was over 95 per cent and union membership was also high within the other large employers in the Latrobe Valley, with the strength of the unions in the Latrobe Valley reflected by six of them having offices in the Latrobe Valley, five with full time local organisers. With the broader affiliation of the largest and most powerful unions represented in the Latrobe Valley, the GTLC was able to negotiate for all its affiliates with regional employing bodies on over-award and cross industry issues, as well as being an important forum for developing regional negotiating strategy and aiding communication. The power of the GTLC peaked from 1987 to the early 1990s, by which time 46 unions were affiliated, providing a broad and representative basis for inter-union activity.^[22]

     The following account is limited to the activities of the GTLC in industrial agency and exchange vis-à-vis the SECV. The period being discussed is the later 1980s, when the GTLC was arguably at the peak of its influence, and when the SECV was still the largest employer in the Latrobe Valley.

GTLC as agent of industrial mobilisation and industrial exchange

The GTLC was in the enviable position of being able to coordinate a significant part of union activity in the region, with its influence particularly strong within the SECV at this time, encouraging and supporting the strong role of shop stewards and workplace organisation in place in the blue collar unions, a situation which was not typical in Australian industry at that time.^[23]

     The SECV was a multi-site employer that needed to deal with a multitude of unions and issues on each site, and there were benefits to the SECV from this relationship. While roles within unions were clearly defined by past custom and practice, the mediation of industrial mobilisation and exchange by the GTLC enabled the SECV to organise, control and bring some discipline to union behaviour; effectively the SECV 'shared control to regain and maintain control'.^[24] It was also easier to resolve industrial issues before they became major concerns, thus giving an added benefit to the SECV. The GTLC also benefited by having its Secretary and President financially supported by the SECV until 1994 as part of this 'sharing of control'.^[25]

     The relationship between mobilisation and exchange became so intertwined that at its peak the GTLC appeared to gain agency in its own right from the relationship with the SECV and its ability to use 'power for' and 'power over' in both exchange and mobilisation. The activities of the GTLC in industrial mobilisation and exchange were heavily interdependent. Involvement in significant areas of inter-union bargaining advanced the strength of the unions within the SECV, and ensured that processes were strictly adhered to for the benefit of their members within the SECV. The SECV also benefited by the introduction of common and consistent procedures which could then act to reduce inter-union conflict.

     The involvement of the GTLC in negotiations for a common set of conditions for all SECV employees demonstrates the interplay between mobilisation and exchange with the SECV. The move to a common award started in 1977 with the serving by the GTLC of a log of claims which incorporated a proposal for a common award for all SECV maintenance workers. A lack of progress on this log eventually led to the eleven-week strike from August that year, during which the Victorian premier declared a state of emergency and extensive power restrictions were imposed for over four weeks.^[26] This ambit claim was broadened in later years to include a proposal for a single award to cover all employees in the Victorian power industry. The eventual approach agreed on with the SECV involved working towards a set of common conditions to be inserted into the relevant awards, which would consolidate conditions of employment in the industry, and rationalise existing customs and practice. After SECV unions decided not to incorporate wage rates in the document, negotiations continued on a common conditions only basis. By June 1988, the five SECV awards that contained conditions of employment were ready to go to the Commission for ratification.^[27]

     A second example of the use of a combination of mobilisation and exchange was in the negotiation during 1985 and 1986 with the VTHC of the Contract/Day Labour Agreement. The origins of the agreement lay with a longstanding policy of the GTLC that work carried out by SECV day labour should continue to be carried out by these workers, since the use of contractors for ongoing maintenance work was a major area of conflict in the power stations. Prior to the negotiation of the agreement, discussion over works proposed to be let to contract was undertaken on the basis of meetings between the GTLC, the SECV and representatives from relevant unions. The process aimed to balance the preferences of management with those of the unions in the amount of contract work let, to maintain employment levels within the SECV.^[28]

     The contract labour agreement formalised in July 1986, provided for the introduction and implementation of agreed processes for the allocation of work for operation, service, maintenance and construction, other than major works. This ensured the maintenance of a united front by unions and the frustrating of management attempts to introduce change concerning the amount of work to be let out under contract.^[29]

     The unions continued to be concerned about the process however, and in November 1991 it was agreed by the SECV that these contract/day labour procedures would be inserted into relevant awards. When this had not happened by April 1992, SECV maintenance workers went on strike. Support during the strike by other SECV unions in the Latrobe Valley and at other SECV sites meant that after only a few days, the status of power generating plant was such that restrictions seemed likely. The SECV agreed that it would make application to the Industrial Relations Commission to have the 1986 agreement inserted into SECV awards thus resolving the dispute.^[30]

     The exchange relationship between the GTLC and the SECV was necessarily influenced by the relationship between the SECV and the state government. This was manifested by an expectation of the use of formal reference to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the control exercised by the Office of Industrial Relations Coordination (OIRC) on state instrumentalities. These provided significant constraints on the role of the GTLC in industrial exchange with the SECV as employer during the 1970s. The serving of a log of claims directly to SECV Latrobe Valley management, prior to the lengthy maintenance workers strike in 1977 has been seen as an attempt to circumvent or weaken the control of the OIRC in relation to determination of wages and conditions of employment and return bargaining to the SECV as employer.^[31]

     It was only after the lengthy 1977 maintenance workers strike that some limited decentralisation of industrial relations activity to the local level within the SECV occurred. This started with the use of the working party concept, a changed approach to demarcation issues, and the development at the local level of industrial relations policies which allowed 'negotiation within limits'.^[32]

     The process of industrial relations change was hastened by the eight-month long Loy Yang dispute in 1980, and assisted by the growing influence in the SECV of more progressive managers, the increasing militancy of key unions such as the FEDFA, the change in leadership of the OIRC, and the increasing public scrutiny of SECV activities.^[33] However, the role of the GTLC in exchange with the SECV had still been significant, when over 20 unions had to be coordinated and to act in unison in order to be able to shut down the power stations. This organisation and administration was a strength of the GTLC, and a threat which involved intra-union organisation was no idle boast.^[34]

     Until the late 1980s, unions were 'incorporated' within the SECV organisational framework. There were meetings to negotiate new awards or variations, with standing committees on a range of matters of interest and relevance to unions, and the formation of new committees and working parties as required. Over time, these working parties moved from involvement in minor organisational matters to significant issues such as asbestos use and the introduction of a shorter working week.^[35]

     The negotiations during 1980 over the introduction of a 37ý hour week were the first significant experience of the changed attitude by the government. The campaign for a shorter working week in Victorian industry was not new, but in 1980 SECV unions determined to negotiate directly with the SECV for a reduction in hours. The SECV agreed to negotiate under certain conditions, including no industrial action during negotiations, ratification of any agreement by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and that any agreement was not to be used as a basis for flow-on agreements in other state instrumentalities or departments. The negotiations proceeded, despite the threat of industrial action, and the shorter working week arrangement was implemented on 1 January 1981. Thus the ongoing efforts by the GTLC to have a greater role in direct negotiation with the SECV appeared to be paying off, especially when in 1982 the SECV was given government approval to negotiate with unions a further reduction to a 36-hour working week.^[36]

     Participation by the GTLC in the SECV decision-making structures at the policy level ensured knowledge of and input to strategic directions and their implementation. For example the SECV Advisory Committee was established in 1984 as a bi-monthly forum for SECV senior management and union representatives to meet in order 'to discuss impending issues of interest in the SEC's business, industrial and engineering activities' with opportunities to provide input into corporate policies, practices and initiatives.^[37] Likewise, the SECV Activities Review commenced in early 1987 to assist in identifying the core business of the SECV, and to 'assess opportunities for cost containment or additional investment of resources and the viability of support service options'^[38] in order for the SECV to achieve corporate objectives. This joint management/union exercise at grassroots level, to find ways to improve management and work practices, resulted in more effective consultation between management, employees and unions/associations.^[39]

     The GTLC was also represented on the joint SECV/union study which met between 1987 and 1989 to examine options for the reduction of operations and maintenance costs at Loy Yang A power station and the Loy Yang Open Cut. The study was prompted by the inquiry into future power station construction by the Natural Resources and Environment Committee, as well as by expected competition from a proposed black coal power station in southern New South Wales. The focus was on the details and implementation of a change program at the Loy Yang A operations in order to improve the competitiveness and viability of brown coal plant. Recommendations were made for significant changes to SECV management, including operation as a business unit, reorganisation of work groups, introduction of skills enhancement, and movement towards joint decision-making, but not all were acceptable to the unions affected.^[40]

     To operate most effectively as an agent of mobilisation and exchange, it was important that the GTLC be recognised by the VTHC as a valid group to represent trade unions in the Latrobe Valley. Relations between the two bodies were not always cordial and there was a perception, particularly by unions associated with the left, that the VTHC was not committed to advancing affiliate interest through direct action. Despite the expectation that shop committees were subordinate to both the ACTU and its state branches, there were instances where the actions of SECV shop committees were seen as a struggle for power between the VTHC and the rank and file.^[41]

     Such struggles served to confirm the view of the Latrobe Valley unions that their state executives had no awareness of or interest in the issues that they saw as important. Similarly, local unionists were not confident in the ability of the VTHC to represent them effectively and to understand issues from a Latrobe Valley perspective. Historically, formal union bodies below the state level have not been considered as central to the overall purpose of the union movement. As a result, the GTLC became the organisation of preference for the sanctioning of industrial action in the Latrobe Valley, and by 1967 it had claimed autonomous control of this function.^[42]

     The GTLC was a powerful force in the Latrobe Valley during the 1980s for coordinating multi-union mobilisation and exchange within the SECV. The advantages of this worked to favour both the unions and the SECV. The latter benefited from having a single organisation to negotiate with on the large range of issues which affected its extensive and diverse workforce; the unions and the GTLC benefited because weaker unions were able to take advantage of the industrial muscle of the more powerful unions operating within the SECV, while the stronger unions gained from a unified approach involving the participation and cooperation of other relevant unions in any agreed bargaining position and resulting industrial action.

     The involvement of the GTLC in the SECV's operations was a result of the collective strength of the GTLC and its affiliated unions being used for a united front, which benefited both the GTLC and the SECV. This strength was based on the affiliation of the major SECV unions and their ability to restrict power supplies in the event that the failure of the exchange process required recourse to mobilisation. This was assisted by the delegation to the GTLC of coordination of mobilising activity by these unions, and the power that this gave the GTLC in its exchange relationship with the SECV during this period.

Conclusion

The outstanding and possibly unique feature of the area in which the GTLC operated was the existence of a single dominant employer, the SECV, which was a state-owned monopoly responsible for producing and distributing electricity for the State of Victoria.

     This resulted in a set of relationships involving the SECV, the unions, employees and the community, which developed over the seventy-year period in which the SECV operated in the Latrobe Valley. The particular industrial structure which evolved included the strength of the SECV employees, the structure of the local union movement which gave greater weight to local stewards over state union officials, and the prominence given in the Melbourne-based news media to any threat to electricity disruption. The social cohesion within the Latrobe Valley encouraged unions to be active in matters which affected both living standards and the wider quality of life. These specific regional influences including the shared ideology of the regional community influenced responses and thus outcomes in industrial relations matters.^[43]

     These factors, together with the awareness of local unions which used the bargaining power this set of circumstances gave them, and the almost closed shop operating within the SECV, combined to give unions significant strength. This strength was delegated to the GTLC together with the authority to negotiate with the SECV on their behalf in multi-union issues.

     Once the SECV ceased to exist in the mid 1990s, the impact on the community was enormous. The shock over the corporatisation and privatisation overwhelmed the strong sense of community and divided the unions, which protected their own interests during this period. The effect of the loss of a monopoly state-owned operation with long ties to the local area, which had an ongoing and fixed place in the local consciousness, and its replacement by a number of mostly foreign-owned private corporations in the business of keeping their shareholders satisfied, had not been foreseen.^[44]

     By the end of the 1990s, as a result of the significant industrial restructuring occurring throughout the Latrobe Valley, the GTLC had declined from a body with significant involvement in both the power industry and general Latrobe Valley industrial relations into an organisation which 'is a shadow of its former self'. The union amalgamation process encouraged by the ACTU reduced the number of unions in local industries, including the new generating companies. The opportunities available to coordinate activity across multiple unions as agent of mobilisation, exchange and regulation seemed to have disappeared, and the GTLC appeared to be on the brink of disappearing like the SECV.^[45]

     However, these structural changes to the industrial and economic environment in which unions operate are those which face the union movement elsewhere and are not unique to the Latrobe Valley. They require a change to the way that trade unions operate in order to stay relevant to workers. The GTLC cannot afford to rely on its past achievements, but must recognise the changes to the nature and composition of work in the Latrobe Valley and develop a response to meet the needs of workers in the 'new' economy.^[46]

     The Ellem and Shields model provides a framework for better understanding the roles which may be undertaken by peak union councils. However, while the framework comments on the role of local structures and their importance for peak union councils operating at the regional or local level, it cannot fully articulate the strength of the relationships which existed in the Latrobe Valley. The combination of the dominance of the particular state-owned employer, together with the strength of the unions, resulted in an interdependence and interaction across the industrial modes of mobilisation and exchange which was greater than one might have expected to be the case.^[47] Also, because of the nature of the industry as a high profile utility in which restrictions to output were immediately noticed, the reactions of the government, the media and the public provided another layer of complexity to the relationships which developed. This also affected the nature of the industrial mobilisation and exchange by the unions involved and thus of the GTLC. The changed context of the industrial environment in the Latrobe Valley since the breakup of the SECV has affected the ways in which the GTLC and the unions are able to mobilise and to participate in exchange relationships in the power industry.

     The Ellem and Shields framework provides a useful means of analysing and understanding the roles and activities of local peak union bodies, but there is also a need to recognise the historical peculiarities of a particular region and/or industry. In the case of the GTLC, these relate to its specific lengthy history of association with the SECV. Thus in summary, the role, activities and power of the GTLC during the 1980s can only be explained within a context which recognises the particular industrial situation existing in the Latrobe Valley at that time, and which together with the particular industrial history and development of the region resulted in a particular response from the unions.