Amalgamation, Organising and Centralisation: A Study of Three Australian Unions

Abstract

The research question discussed below was prompted by an observation of some, but by no means all, Australian unions seeking to centralise a number of functions in their federal office. Several countervailing factors impact upon the propensity of unions to centralise functions, which leads to some secondary research questions. The primary research question that this thesis seeks to answer is what has given rise to the centralisation of functions within three Australian unions? The question is asked in the context of declining union membership in Australia and most other developed economies (Bodman 1998; Dabscheck 1995; Jerrard and Le Queux 2013; Peetz 1998; Sappey et al 2006; Watson et al 2003). The decline in union membership is of concern to many industrial relations scholars (Boyer 1995; Bramble 1995; Bramble 2001; Conrow and Delp 1999; Cooper 2001; Hyman 2004; Juravich and Bronfenbrenner 1998:281; Peetz 1998:175; Peetz, Pocock and Houghton 2007; Simms and Holgate 2008; Voss and Sherman 2000:311; Wooden 2000) and is quite obviously of significant concern to the labour movement (ACTU 2001). It is for this reason that the question is significant, whether the centralisation of functions and powers is of assistance, or is counter-productive to other union renewal strategies. Arising out of the Primary Research Question, there are a range of secondary questions.