Home > Student Archival Essays > Migrants and Trade Unions

Migrants and Trade Unions

by Julia Harrison

Concerns Over Assimilation And Employment Of Baltic Migrants And Refugees

Trades Hall Debates Conditions And Responsibilities Regarding Post-War Immigrants

Unions Protest Assisted Migration For Southern Europeans

Migrant workers were repeatedly marginalized by trade unions in Melbourne, Australia. The impetus for the lack of consideration of migrants by trade unions was a protectionist attitude towards Australian jobs and unions’ prioritizing of other issues. This essay examines the detrimental attitudes of the Australian trade unions, particularly the Trades Hall Council, towards migrants as well as the issues confronted by migrants in regards to unions, with a focus on the period following the Second World War.

Migrants formed an integral part of the origins of trade unions in Melbourne. The Victorian gold rush of the mid-nineteenth century caused a swift influx of migrants seeking to profit from the discovery of gold and “among the immigrants were people steeped in European radicalism, in particular British Chartism, who brought with them the tradition of labour organization.”¹ Carlotta Kellaway describes the “rapid growth of trade unionism” in Melbourne in the latter half of the 1800s and terms the resultant trade and labour associations as being “concerned with the moral and social wellbeing of their members.”² Despite the prevalence of migrants in the beginnings of trade unionism in Melbourne, the available archival Trades Hall Council meeting minutes contain a notable deficiency of references to migrants, both prior and subsequent to the Second World War. The absence of discussion of migrant issues within the Trades Hall meetings indicates a lack of concern by unionists with migrants and highlights low priority status attributed to migrant issues by Trades Hall delegates. Academic June Hearn reports on “the apparent imperviousness of most union administrations to the migrant impact” and contends that consequently “there is a paucity of material available on the migrant-union scene in Australia.”³ Notwithstanding the ethnic foundations of trade unionism in Melbourne, once Trades Hall Counciln had been established and the unions gained a semblance of power it appears that migrants were marginalized.

The next substantial arrival of migrants to Australia after the gold rush occurred in the years following the Second World War resulting in a marked increase in migrant participation in the Australian workforce. By the 1980s approximately three million migrants had settled in Australia, accounting for “more than sixty percent of the population increase and over fifty percent of the increase in the Australian workplace since 1947.”⁴ Hearn posits that numerous features of Australian unionism were new and perplexing to migrants, a statement that highlights the need for effective policy and communication between Australian and migrant unionists in order to realize functioning migrant participation in trade unions. However, what is evident from the minutes of the 15 April 1948 meeting of the Trades Hall Council is that the primary concern of the Council is the “avoidance of unnecessary interruption in industry” by the placement of migrants in the workforce.⁵ The previous meeting’s minutes of 8 April 1948 detailed concern with integrating Baltic immigrants into the workforce. At the invitation of the government, a union official attended a migrant arrival camp in order to better understand the role migrants would have in Australia. As a result, the Trades Hall Council Executive requested the government confer with the Council before any displaced persons are employed.⁶ However, in the course of debating the exact wording of the resolution in the 15 April meeting it is clear that the reasons for requiring government consultation is to protect Australian jobs. For example, a suggested change to the resolution was, “the T.H.C. cannot guarantee any avoidance of interruption in the industry unless each affiliated Union concerned is consulted as to the capacity of their respective industries to absorb Displaced persons who have satisfactory trade unions credentials…”7 Although not carried, this amendment clearly demonstrates that the purpose of the consultation was protectionist rather than in the interests of the migrants. In addition, a recommendation carried on 16 June 1949 “That a Committee of Advise be created in each State to discuss matters of mutual concern to the Unions and the Commonwealth Employment services, including the employment of displaced persons” reiterates a protectionist approach to migrants by the Trade Union Council.⁸

Fearing an escalation in Australian unemployment rates and preferential treatment for immigrants, the Trades Hall Council repeatedly exhibited a lack of consideration in regards to migrant issues. Des Storer and Alan Matheson argue, “From the very beginning, the Australian Trade Union Movement has mostly perceived ‘foreign labour’ as being used by employers as a threat to the hard won wage and working conditions and improvements.”⁹ Significantly, minutes from 1 September 1949 note a decision to appoint someone from the unions to a committee organized by the Minister for Labor “to direct the placing of migrant labor in various industries.”¹⁰ This pronouncement is consistent with the protectionist attitude of unionists, as the motivation for engaging in the committee was in order to limit and control employment of migrants. Minutes from 23 June 1949 reveal a defensive stance displayed by unionists in response to accusations by Moscow Radio Broadcasts that “the Australian Workers’ Government [were] making slaves of displaced persons.”¹¹ Whilst the A.C.T.U. “[denied] on behalf of the Trade Union Movement of Australia any charges that Displaced Persons are not given full freedom and conditions of work granted to all Australian Trade Unionists,” the charges of the Russian press highlights the fact there were queries and concerns about whether migrants were being suitably treated at the time.¹² Minutes from 8 September 1949 report on a number of child migrants who died of malnutrition. In considering this matter, The Executive “suggested that representatives…might travel to Bonegilla Migrant Camp to investigate the conditions of the housing migrants in that camp,” demonstrating an outward display of empathy.¹³ However, within the 1949 minutes there was no follow up to this decision and no report made back to the Executive. Additionally, the Executive opined, “that people should not be allowed to travel unless they are fit to do so” indicating the welfare of the migrants was the responsibility of others.¹⁴ Therefore, it is insinuated that migrants were persistently subordinated within the Trades Hall meetings.

A report submitted by union Delegate A. McNolty on 13 October 1949 regarding the International Labour Organisation (I.L.O) Conference exemplifies the defensive stance Australian unionists held concerning the employment of migrants. The 32^nd session of the I.L.O Conference was held in June and July 1949 in Geneva Switzerland, and McNolty attended as a worker representative of the Trades Hall Council on two committees; the Wages Committee and the Committee on Migration for Employment.¹⁵ That McNolty represented both vastly different committees is suggestive of the deficiency of individual attention and thought attributed to migrant issues. Additionally, McNolty comments that is was “impossible for the workers’ delegates to attend all meetings of the Committees that they were elected to.”¹⁶ Thus, an all-encompassing and accurate report of the I.L.O Conference was unable to be realized. McNolty recounts a speech given by Australian delegate from the Selection Committee Dr. E.R. Walker, in response to a Government delegate from the Phillipines (Mr Lanting) accusing Australia of “stringent immigration policies” based on racial prejudice.¹⁷ In a public display of compassion and awareness of the controversial subject Walker countered, “Mr. Lanting expressed the hope that we should approach the problem of international migration for employment in a spirit of absolute equality and universal justice, with no other purpose than the welfare of all concerned. Nobody could object to such an expression of hope.”¹⁸ Whilst Walker’s comment appears empathetic, later statements in his speech reveal a less inclusive perspective.  Walker admits, “…preference has been given to immigrants who can be readily assimilated.”¹⁹ This admission accords with the address of Greek immigrant George Zangalis to the Victorian Trades Hall Council in 1971, nearly 25 years later, where Zangalis emphasized, “Union structures basically correspond to the needs of those who speak only English and have a pretty good knowledge of unionism.”²⁰ Walker goes on to state, “Persons of other races who are born in Australia enjoy full rights as Australian citizens, and suffer no segregation and no discrimination of any sort.”²¹ Walker’s use of the term “born in Australia” is a key qualification, avoiding discussion of the benefits provided to those who migrated to Australia, which was what Lanting explicitly referred to. Finally, Walker contended, ”Australians do not believe that their attractive standards could be maintained if we threw open our doors to all who might wish to come from less developed countries.”²² Walker’s contention illustrates the prioritization of the protection of Australians that was apparently central to unionist attitudes towards migrant employment.

Issues with migrant workers in Australian unions persisted into the 1970’s, as evidenced by the organization of the 1973 Migrant Workers’ Conference.  This conference was held in order to resolve the problems migrants observed as present in migrant/union relations. The conference occurred over two days in 1973 at Trades Hall in Carlton, Victoria and was attended by approximately 200 delegates on each day – notably, the majority of the delegates were migrant workers.²³ It is historically significant that the conference was held at Trades Hall as the building had been the home of the Victorian union movement and the Trades Hall Council since 1859.²⁴ A broad range of trade unions sponsored or were officially represented at the conference, including the Australian Railways Union, the Food Preservers Union, the Glass Workers Union and the Miscellaneous Workers Union.²⁵ According to George Zangalis, the conference was the “first attempt in Australia to tackle the long-neglected problems confronting migrant workers.”²⁶ Problems vocalized by migrant workers at the conference were numerous. Zangalis elucidated that migrants comprise “the bulk of the unskilled and semi-skilled workers” and undertake the “hardest, dirtiest and most inhuman work and receives the lowest possible wages.”²⁷ Similarly, the secretary of the Port Kembla Branch Federated Ironworkers’ Association said, “I am witnessing migrant exploitation daily.”²⁸ An oft-repeated complaint during the course of the conference related to difficulty of communication for non-English speaking migrants. A.C.T.U Research Officer and Victorian Task Force member P.I. Nolan identified communication as “one of the major problems.”²⁹ To assist with addressing communication issues, Nolan called for the Trades Hall Council “to participate in the organizing of proposed interpreter courses in various languages.”³⁰ Also concerned with issues resulting from communicative barriers, at the conference June Hearn recommended on the job English language classes during working hours as well as more systematic use of foreign languages in union information and propaganda.³¹ The conference challenged the contemporary minimum weekly wage of $60, citing it as “totally inadequate and unacceptable.”³² Regarding social needs and rights, executive secretary of the Good Neighbour Council Niall Brennan advocates increased support for the migrant community for housing, schools, hospitals and medical care.³³ Identifying and itemizing the issues at the conference allowed the participants and the unions alike to gain awareness of the inadequacies of labour market for migrants.

The conclusions of the conference “called on the migrant workers and the entire working class” to study and act upon the conference proposals, which required a significant reappraisal of the role of migrants in trade unions.³⁴ The resolutions began with attending to wages and conditions, demanding a minimum weekly wage of $90 and that inhuman treatment, intimidation and arbitrary dismissal of migrant workers by employers must henceforth be “vigorously combated.”³⁵ Referring back to the communication issue the conference regarded as critical, the conference proposed that awards, agreements and safety regulations must be explained to migrant workers in their own languages and subsequently closely monitored.³⁶ In the category of trade union involvement, the following reforms were suggested; the creation of a trade union education program for migrants and the encouragement of electing and promoting migrants as union officials, delegates and organizers. The most substantial of the trade union specific proposals was the proposal that trade unions establish migrant committees comprised of union members who can thus meet and discuss in their own languages prevalent problems and ascertain what both migrants and unions can do to rectify those problems.³⁷ This resolution addresses George Zangalis’ desired result of the conference being the establishment of “the opening up of all avenues for migrant workers to voice their views and demands in the manner and language they know best.”³⁸ In reference to social needs and culture, the conference advocated paid maternity leave, old age pensions, the extension of assisted passage facilities for British migrants to all incoming migrants and the “right” of all new migrants to fully paid intensive English courses.³⁹ In 1993, Greek migrant John Milides referred to the 1973 conference as “a turning point in the history of migrant workers and in the history of migrant participation in trade unions.”⁴⁰ The extensive resolutions of the conference were obviously beneficial to migrants, however the fact that such monumental changes needed to be implemented more than 25 years after the migrant influx demonstrates that the unions did not act in the best interests of the migrants with sufficient diligence immediately after the Second World War. It is also apparent from the 1948-1949 minutes that migrant issues were evident earlier.

In conclusion, the Trades Hall Council was consistent in its marginalization of migrants in the labour force. Although it is evident from the Trades Hall meeting minutes that there was awareness of problems relating to migrants relatively soon after the end of the Second World War, it took effectively a generation for the issues to be adequately identified and articulated and thus commence to be addressed via the 1973 Migrant Workers’ Conference.

 References