Finance Sector Union

Last updated

FSU
Finance Sector Union
FoundedJuly 1991
HeadquartersMelbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth
Location
Members
22,629 (as at 31 December 2022) [1]
Key people
Julia Angrisano, National Secretary
Wendy Streets, National President
Jason Hall, National Assistant Secretary
Nicole McPherson, National Assistant Secretary
Affiliations ACTU
Website www.fsunion.org.au

The Finance Sector Union of Australia (FSU) is a white collar trade union that represents professionals working in the Banking, Finance, Insurance and Superannuation industries in Australia.

Contents

The FSU was formed from the amalgamation in 1991 of various smaller unions drawn from the banking, insurance, trustee, brokering, and general finance industries.

History

The origins of the Finance Sector Union of Australia (FSU) extend back to 1919, when the Australian Bank Officers' Association (ABOA) was formed. The Australian Insurance Staffs' Federation (AISF) followed in 1920. An abortive attempt had been made to form an association of bank officers in 1913, but the bank clerk responsible for the move was discovered and summarily dismissed. [2] However, ex-servicemen returning from the trenches of World War I were in no mood to be dealt with in the same way, and it was the self-belief which they had developed on the battlefields of France and the Middle East which gave them the confidence to form their own, independent staff association.

This did not necessarily mean that they had become radicalised as such, or that it was their intention to radicalise the finance sector. Indeed, both the ABOA and the AISF remained deeply conservative organisations for many years; terms such as association and federation were quite deliberately chosen to distinguish these organisations from their militant, blue-collar cousins.

It is necessary, however, to consider the organisational context in which the ABOA and AISF operated in the early decades of the 20th century. To begin, there were no female employees in either banking or insurance companies in Australia at this time. Recruits were drawn almost exclusively from rural and semi-rural areas, and especially from conservative middle-class families where the father was a lawyer, doctor, or member of some other respected profession. Employment in the finance sector at this time attached to itself a high degree of prestige; but the actual work – especially in the lower echelons – was tedious, repetitive, heavily supervised, and poorly paid. Moreover, an employee's cadetship (which could last for up to two years) was entirely unpaid, requiring that they be supported by their family; this helped justify the practice of drawing recruits from the middle classes. Employees were required to wear formal suits; were required to doff their hats and address their superiors as "sir"; were prohibited from marrying until such time as the bank believed they could financially support a family and thus not besmirch the bank's public standing; and were banned from attending public meetings, participating in political campaigns, or from seeking public office. [3]

Also militating against their effectiveness was the fact that the ABOA and AISF were actually just two of a number of state-based staff associations which emerged in the finance sector during this period. These various organisations were not necessarily inclined to act co-operatively, or even to view one another as natural allies in the interests of their respective memberships. In some cases, it was not until the 1960s that the last of these state-based organisations agreed to merge with their federally based rivals. This division of membership naturally ensured that the overall coverage of the ABOA and AISF remained relatively small for many years; and those who did join frequently continued in the habits of difference and subservience into which they had been inculcated by the prevailing industry culture.

However, by the late 1950s, ABOA and the AISF were members of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations (ACSPA), an umbrella organisation that continuously co-operated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) on basic wages, and margins cases; and, in particular, ABOA's leadership sought close ties with the rest of the union movement. [4]

Pre-WWII

Despite the many obstacles by which both the AISF and the ABOA were confronted, the very fact of their formation prompted the banks to raise employee salaries in 1919 and 1920. [5] In 1921, insurance employers agreed to a log of claims submitted by the AISF, thus establishing the first ever national standard for employment conditions in that industry. [6] These improvements, and the formation of the staff organisations themselves, were fiercely resented by banking and insurance employers, who accordingly adopted a number of aggressive tactics ranging from preferential treatment of non-unionists to outright intimidation to blunt the AISF's and the ABOA's effectiveness.

The Great Depression of 1930–39 was a period of extreme difficulty for both unions. The drastically declining national economy created an atmosphere of fear and apprehension, in which the thought of industrial action was abhorrent and the terror of unemployment conspired to produce a subservient workforce. In this environment, finance employers went on the offensive, cutting jobs and, in one instance, serving up a pay cut of 20% to insurance employees. [7] Unsurprisingly, the unions' membership went into steep decline, plunging from 1281 in 1931 to 858 in 1937. [8]

Despite these straitened circumstances, the AISF managed to win one important victory in 1931. In that year, the Arbitration Court allowed insurance employers to cut wages by a further 10%; on appeal to the High Court, the AISF successfully argued that this additional cut took wages below the ambit minimum that generated a 1927 pay claim and subsequent award. This ruling ensured that pay cuts could not continue to occur indefinitely.

Generally, speaking, however, the 1930s were a period when the extreme economic circumstances rendered both unions largely ineffective.

Post WWII

The aftermath of the Second World War, and in particular, the emerging economic power of women, presented new challenges for both unions. Manpower shortages during the war resulted in many women taking on jobs previously considered male-only preserves; at war's end, many women felt they should not have to surrender jobs which they had demonstrated they could perform as effectively as their male counterparts. The AISF and ABOA were confronted with the dilemma of accommodating the demand for employment by returning servicemen with the rising industrial voice of female employees. This dilemma was only partially resolved by the boom in insurance and banking after the war, which created a demand for staff that could only by partially supplied by the available male workforce. Moreover, many employers had re-classified as "female" many jobs previously labelled "male", and were happy to employ women in these roles – and pay them at significantly lower wages.

However, as early as 1927, the AISF Executive had supported a call for equality of wages, and in 1941, won an award establishing minimum female rates of pay. In 1942, a mass meeting of 600 female insurance employees called for the implementation of the equal pay principle; [9] and in 1948, the AISF and other unions actively campaigned on this issue. However, this push was defeated by the post-war wage pegging legislation; it would not be re-implemented until the 1970s.

The ABOA spent the immediate post-war period engaged in a bitter controversy with the Chifley Labor government over its plans to nationalise the banking industry, and was instrumental in the election of the Menzies Liberal government in 1949. In the 1950s the ABOA embarked on three major industrial campaigns: the push for a 5-day working week; the introduction of long service leave; and the equalisation of wages between private banks and the Commonwealth Bank. These campaigns resulted in a growing industrial identity among bank employees; industrial action was seriously considered for the first time in the ABOA's history; and wage increases were won in 1951, 1954, and 1959. [10] The right to a 5-day working week was finally achieved in 1963. [11]

1960s and 70s

The ABOA and AISF spent much of the first half of the 1960s consolidating their positions as the representative voice of banking and insurance employees, finally achieving merger with the various state-based staff associations (the AISF also changed its name to the Australian Insurance Employees' Union; the ABOA did not become the ABEU – Australian Bank Employees' Union – until some time later)). In the late 1960s, both unions once again took up the battle for equal pay for women. The employment of women had been resisted (and resented) by male employees right up to the outbreak of WWII, and often only grudgingly tolerated after that conflict because of the changed economic circumstances. By the late 1960s, however, women formed the majority of the workforce in both banking and insurance, and though under-represented in the decision-making organs of both unions, successfully pressed the case for an equal wages campaign.

The first step occurred when the ABOA instituted a policy of supporting women members who undertook claims for back pay for having performed "additional duties" – that is, work classified as "male". In 1969, the Arbitration Court handed down a decision setting out a timetable for the elimination of gender-based wage discrimination, and in 1970, the ABOA won compensation for four women who had not been paid the "male" wage rate when performing "male" classified work. In 1972, the AIEU and ABOA lodged claims for award variations, resulting in a decision that gender-based wage systems would be phased out by 1975. When employers threatened to drag the chain on implementing these reforms, the AIEU authorised strike action – the first time a white-collar clerical union in Australia had made such an authorisation. It was overwhelmingly supported by AIEU members. [12]

As a consequence of these campaigns, in November 1975, the AIEU and ABOA finally achieved the elimination of gender-based wage systems.

The 1970s also saw the ABOA and AISF launch two more successful campaigns: firstly, for the implementation of four weeks' annual leave; and, secondly, the establishment of minimum entitlements for employees who lose their jobs through retrenchment due to organisational or technological change.

The 1980s and beyond

The deregulation of the Australian finance sector during the 1980s resulted in a highly volatile, fluid industry in which the old certainties were cast aside and the impact of neo-liberal economic policies became more apparent. One of the most noticeable changes was the emergence of "all-finance", the notion that banking and insurance companies break out of their traditional spheres of activity, and, through mergers, takeovers, and strategic alliances, look instead to offer their clients a suite of banking, insurance, stockbroking, and financial services products. The rapidly changing face of banking and insurance required a coherent response that was not to be anchored in a specific industry, but which instead could cover the entire field of finance and finance-related services.

In response to the changing face and direction of the finance industry in Australia, and after much negotiation, the Finance Sector Union of Australia was founded in July 1991 when the ABEU and the AIEU voted to amalgamate and create a union based on the industry itself, as opposed to the increasingly convoluted divide between the trades of insurance and finance. It followed that four smaller unions became involved in this merger: the AMP Society Staff Association, Trustee Companies Officers' Association; the Wool Brokers' Staff Association; and the Reserve Bank Officers' Association. In March 1994, the FSU was further consolidated when the Commonwealth Bank Officers' Association joined the consolidated union, while continuing to retain some functions as a separate section within the union.

During this period, the FSU also responded to the changing workplace environment by launching successful campaigns for the introduction of paid maternity leave (followed by paid parental leave, exclusive of gender), job sharing, and the introduction of employer sponsored sick leave cover for retrenched employees who find employment again in the industry within 12 months of their termination from their previous employer. However, the consequences of rapid technological change, the mass restructuring of workplaces and consequent off shoring of jobs, and the implementation of sweeping changes to Australian industrial law by the Howard Liberal government, means that many serious challenges face the FSU into the immediate and ongoing future.

On 1 October 2006, the Commonwealth Bank Officers' Section (CBOS) formally amalgamated with the FSU and ceased to be a separate entity within the FSU.

On 24 October 2022, the Fair Work Commission approved amendments to the rules of the FSU. The new rules removed sections and branches of the Union and provides for the FSU to operate as one national structure.

Electorates of the Union

All members are attached to an employment and geographic electorate and may also be attached to occupational and/or special electorates if they identify with that electorate:

Employment ElectoratesGeographic ElectoratesOccupational ElectoratesSpecial Electorates
ANZ BankVic/TasSuperannuationLGBTQIA+
BankwestNSW/ACTCredit Unions & Building SocietiesFirst Nations
Commonwealth BankSA/NTCentralised Customer ServiceDisability
InsuranceQldMortgage BrokersRegional & Remote
MiscellaneousWATechnology ServicesYoung Adults
National Australia BankWealth Management
Other Banks
Reserve Bank
Westpac Banking Group

Related Research Articles

Labour laws, labour code or employment laws are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, employer, and union.

Employment is a relationship between two parties regulating the provision of paid labour services. Usually based on a contract, one party, the employer, which might be a corporation, a not-for-profit organization, a co-operative, or any other entity, pays the other, the employee, in return for carrying out assigned work. Employees work in return for wages, which can be paid on the basis of an hourly rate, by piecework or an annual salary, depending on the type of work an employee does, the prevailing conditions of the sector and the bargaining power between the parties. Employees in some sectors may receive gratuities, bonus payments or stock options. In some types of employment, employees may receive benefits in addition to payment. Benefits may include health insurance, housing, disability insurance. Employment is typically governed by employment laws, organisation or legal contracts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Payroll tax</span> Tax imposed on employers or employees

Payroll taxes are taxes imposed on employers or employees, and are usually calculated as a percentage of the salaries that employers pay their employees. By law, some payroll taxes are the responsibility of the employee and others fall on the employer, but almost all economists agree that the true economic incidence of a payroll tax is unaffected by this distinction, and falls largely or entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Because payroll taxes fall exclusively on wages and not on returns to financial or physical investments, payroll taxes may contribute to underinvestment in human capital, such as higher education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Salary</span> Form of periodic payment from an employer to an employee

A salary is a form of periodic payment from an employer to an employee, which may be specified in an employment contract. It is contrasted with piece wages, where each job, hour or other unit is paid separately, rather than on a periodic basis. Salary can also be considered as the cost of hiring and keeping human resources for corporate operations, and is hence referred to as personnel expense or salary expense. In accounting, salaries are recorded in payroll accounts.

Australian labour law concerns Commonwealth, state, and common law on rights and duties of workers, unions and employers in Australia. The main source of law is the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009, while state and territory laws can add to protection, and judge-made common law provides a default set of rights.

Finnish national income policy agreements or comprehensive income policy agreements are tripartite agreements between Finnish trade unions, employers' organizations, and the Finnish government. They are policy documents covering a wide range of economic and political issues, such as salaries, taxation, pensions, unemployment benefits, and housing costs. They represent collective bargaining taken to its logical maximum, reaching virtually all wage-earners. Their enforcement is made easier by the universal validity of collective labour agreements. However, they are voluntary agreements and are not considered government legislation, i.e. they do not represent central planning of the economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association</span> Australian trade union

The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA) is the largest private sector trade union in Australia, representing retail, fast-food and warehousing workers, and has branches in every state and territory. Its membership is predominantly in casual and insecure employment within the retail and fast food sectors. The union also represents a significant membership of workers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

This article gives detailed information on the employment situation in Hong Kong.

<i>Harvester case</i> Australian labour law decision

Ex parte H.V. McKay, commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The case arose under the Excise Tariff Act 1906 which imposed an excise duty on goods manufactured in Australia, £6 in the case of a stripper harvester, however if a manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages to its employees, it was excused from paying the excise duty. The Court therefore had to consider what was a "fair and reasonable" wage for the purpose of the act.

Overtime bans are a type of strike in which workers refuse to engage in overtime work, being any work that falls outside of contracted hours. They do this to leverage their employer into negotiating various working conditions. Often organised in unions, workers may choose this form of industrial action to bargain for a higher rate of pay, better working conditions or to discourage an employer from making redundancies. Unlike a full strike in which employees are usually in breach of their contract, workers engaging in overtime bans are typically well protected. Employers cannot legally withhold normal wages during an overtime ban if employees are not breaching the terms of their employment contracts by refusing to do overtime work. However, the legalities of overtime bans do vary between countries. Overtime bans are effective where "industries and organisations run on such habitually high levels of overtime or goodwill that overtime bans ... can have a significant and immediate impact upon the availability of a good or service". Historically, unions have at times received criticism on ethical grounds for choosing to enact overtime bans. The literature records the occurrence of such bans from the 1800s and there is documentation of their use in four continents.

A collective agreement, collective labour agreement (CLA) or collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a written contract negotiated through collective bargaining for employees by one or more trade unions with the management of a company that regulates the terms and conditions of employees at work. This includes regulating the wages, benefits, and duties of the employees and the duties and responsibilities of the employer or employers and often includes rules for a dispute resolution process.

Labour in India refers to employment in the economy of India. In 2020, there were around 476.67 million workers in India, the second largest after China. Out of which, agriculture industry consist of 41.19%, industry sector consist of 26.18% and service sector consist 32.33% of total labour force. Of these over 94 percent work in unincorporated, unorganised enterprises ranging from pushcart vendors to home-based diamond and gem polishing operations. The organised sector includes workers employed by the government, state-owned enterprises and private sector enterprises. In 2008, the organised sector employed 27.5 million workers, of which 17.3 million worked for government or government owned entities. The Human Rights Measurement Initiative finds that India is only doing 43.9% of what should be possible at its level of income for the right to work. Employees are routinely taken advantage of by their employers because of loose labour laws across all industries in India.

The New York State Department of Labor is the department of the New York state government that enforces labor law and administers unemployment benefits.

German Statutory Accident Insurance or workers' compensation is among the oldest branches of German social insurance. Occupational accident insurance was established in Germany by statute in 1884. It is now a national, compulsory program that insures workers for injuries or illness incurred through their employment, or the commute to or from their employment. Wage earners, apprentices, family helpers and students including children in kindergarten are covered by this program. Almost all self-employed persons can voluntarily become insured. The German workers' compensation laws were the first of their kind.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian labour law</span> Laws regulating labour in India

Indian labour law refers to law regulating labour in India. Traditionally, the Indian government at the federal and state levels has sought to ensure a high degree of protection for workers, but in practice, this differs due to the form of government and because labour is a subject in the concurrent list of the Indian Constitution. The Minimum Wages Act 1948 requires companies to pay the minimum wage set by the government alongside limiting working weeks to 40 hours. Overtime is strongly discouraged with the premium on overtime being 100% of the total wage. The Payment of Wages Act 1936 mandates the payment of wages on time on the last working day of every month via bank transfer or postal service. The Factories Act 1948 and the Shops and Establishment Act 1960 mandate 15 working days of fully paid vacation leave each year to each employee with an additional 7 fully paid sick days. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 gives female employees of every company the right to take 6 months' worth of fully paid maternity leave. It also provides for 6 weeks worth of paid leaves in case of miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy. The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and the Employees' State Insurance, governed by statutory acts provide workers with necessary social security for retirement benefits and medical and unemployment benefits respectively. Workers entitled to be covered under the Employees' State Insurance are also entitled to 90 days worth of paid medical leaves. A contract of employment can always provide for more rights than the statutory minimum set rights. The Indian parliament passed four labour codes in the 2019 and 2020 sessions. These four codes will consolidate 44 existing labour laws. They are: The Industrial Relations Code 2020, The Code on Social Security 2020, The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 and The Code on Wages 2019.

Gender pay gap in Australia looks at the persistence of a gender pay gap in Australia. In Australia, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was introduced in 1969. Anti-discrimination on the basis of sex was legislated in 1984.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wage theft</span> Denial of wages or employee benefits rightfully owed to an employee

Wage theft is the failing to pay wages or provide employee benefits owed to an employee by contract or law. It can be conducted by employers in various ways, among them failing to pay overtime; violating minimum-wage laws; the misclassification of employees as independent contractors; illegal deductions in pay; forcing employees to work "off the clock", not paying annual leave or holiday entitlements, or simply not paying an employee at all.

<i>Wage Earner Protection Program Act</i>

The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, is an act of the Parliament of Canada. It was part of a package of reforms to the insolvency law of Canada that were brought into force in 2008 and 2009 to compensate employees of companies made bankrupt or placed into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It was subsequently expanded in 2011 to cover employees who lose their jobs when their employer's attempt at restructuring subsequently ends in bankruptcy or receivership.

In Russia the wage gap exists and statistical analysis shows that most of it cannot be explained by lower qualifications of women compared to men. On the other hand, occupational segregation by gender and labor market discrimination seem to account for a large share of it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Department of Labour and Employment (Tamil Nadu)</span>

The Department of Labour and Employment of state of Tamil Nadu is one of the Department of Government of Tamil Nadu

References

  1. "Membership size of registered organisations – 2023" (PDF). Fair Work Commission. Retrieved 16 September 2023.
  2. Hill (1982) , p. 11
  3. Hill (1982) , pp. 6–10. See also Gleghorn (1992) , pp. 1–8
  4. Barney (book). 1980s.[ full citation needed ]
  5. Hill (1982) , pp. 35–36
  6. Gleghorn (1992) , pp. 14–15
  7. Gleghorn (1992) , p. 9
  8. Gleghorn (1992) , p. 28
  9. Gleghorn (1992) , p. 32
  10. Hill (1982) , pp. 136–161
  11. Hill (1982) , pp. 182–187. See also Gleghorn (1992) , pp. 57–62
  12. Hill (1982) , p. 227. See also Gleghorn (1992) , p. 104

Bibliography

  • Gleghorn, Geoff (1992). Life in General: A Short History of Organised Insurance Workers in Australia. Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Insurance Employees Union. ISBN   0959170812.
  • Hill, John (1982). From Subservience to Strike: Industrial Relations in the Banking Industry. St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press. ISBN   0702218308.