The Meatworkers' Health Clinic: Some Relevant Aspects of a Trade Union Enterprise
Authors: Cupper Les 
Published: March 2007

The future of Australia's first and only trade union health clinic is in doubt. The clinic, established by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (Victorian Branch) in 1964, has undergone significant changes in function over time and may be purchased by an organization independent of the Meatworkers' Union. If this occurs future development could take the form of a community health centre or a health maintenance organization. The purpose of this paper, however, is not to predict the likely future of the clinic but to document its origins, objectives and development, and to examine the A.M.I.E.U.'s performance in one of the more controversial aspects of the labour movement—involvement in business enterprises. Specifically, the reader's attention is directed to the union's role as an employer, the venture's standing within the union movement and its impact on the Meatworkers' Union. 1. Other examples of this philosophy include attempts in the 1920s to establish union butchers' shops and schemes to provide for the supply, handling and sale of meat independent of middlemen. More recent activities centre upon organizing cultural programmes—art, ballet and the theatre—particularly for children who, in very many cases, would not otherwise have had such opportunities. For a coverage of these activities see A. E. Davies, The Meatworkers Unite, Union Printing, Annandale, N.S.W., 1974. 2. A.M.I.E.U. publication, The Trade Union Clinic and Research Centre, Industrial Printing Co., Melbourne (undated). 3. Report of the Medical Director, 2nd Annual General Meeting of the T.U.C.R.C. Ltd., May 2, 1966, p. 1. This study, commissioned by the Department of Labour and Immigration, will also recommend safety procedures for the prevention of such injuries and, more interestingly, the most suitable means of educating migrant workers on aspects of safety. The Clinic is likely to be purchased by the Trade Union Clinic and Research Centre Ltd.—the company which presently leases and manages the venture. To allow the sale to be negotiated A.M.I.E.U. officials no longer sit on the Board of Management as representatives of the Union. The Union has also undertaken not to exercise any residual legal rights in respect of control of the company for six months from November 11, 1974. The Board has since extended the range of its representation to include community and consumer interests. The Board's former structure is outlined later in this paper. 5. Report of the Administrator, 9th Annual General Meeting of the T.U.C.R.C. Ltd., October 15, 1974, p. 9. 7. For elaboration see Les Cupper, "The A.C.T.U. Economic Eenterprises", The Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 16, No. 2, June, 1974, pp. 114-126; D. K. Round, "The A.C.T.U. Economic Enterprises—A Comment", The Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 17, No. 1, March, 1975, pp. 90-93; Les Cupper, "The A.C.T.U. Economic Enterprises—A Reply", The Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol. 17, No. 3, September, 1975, pp. 311-316; D. K. Round, "The A.C.T.U. Economic Enterprises—A Further Comment", The Journal of Industrial Relatians, Vol. 17, No. 3, September, 1975, pp. 317-320. 8. These conditions were provided without undue pressure from the Hospita Employees' Federation. 9. The Administrator's Report, Annual General Meeting of the T.U.C.R.C. Ltd., June 20, 1972. 10. Ibid. 11. This is not to imply that settlement should have been an easy task. Indeed, the fact that a union was involved as the employer provided the striking employees with an additional bargaining tactic, that being the ability to embarrass the union movement by their action. 12. Tribune, July 28, 1971, p. 4. 13. The A.C.T.U.'s decision to enter the business world was also accompanied by a fear that a pre-occupation with economic activity would encourage a disproportionate allocation of resources away from its "traditional" interest. See Cupper (June, 1974), op. cit., pp. 125-126. 14. Allegations that the Clinic was "in the pay of the insurance companies" regarding compensation claims, and comments such as "the Clinic isn't any cheaper than doctors" and "It's only any good if you live around Footscray" are representative of the spasmodic grievances aired by members. 15. It is recognized that such an assessment is extremely subjective, based as it is on an examination of union records and discussions with union officials. A more thorough assessment of the impact of the venture on the union would require a survey of the members' attitudes and a comparison of the conditions of employment in the Victorian Meat Industry with those existing in other States. 16. In 1973 the union provided S190,000 to allow extensions to be undertaken. It is of note that the problem of the health service outgrowing a union's financial capacities (or desires) is not confined to the Australian experience. For example, the United Auto-workers Union of America faced a similar dilemma with their major group practice hospital medical plan in Detroit. This plan operated a 130-bed hospital and five Community Clinics. In December, 1973, the plan's membership reached 70,000 and the U.A.W. decided to turn the operation over to an agency in preference to spending a great deal more money to expand its operations. 17. For an account of the experiences of some American union enterprises, see D. C. Box and J. T. Dunlop, Labor and the American Community, Simon and Schuster, N.Y., 1970, Ch. 13.