‘Communal life, common interests and healthy conditions’: industrial welfarism at Electrolytic Zinc, Hobart 1918-27

In the years after World War I the provision of company welfare schemes was, according to Hay, limited to a small number of companies. There was a great amount of variation in the amount of coverage offered by companies and the schemes mostly centred around pensions, death benefits and disability allowances. The vast majority of companies, however, were anti-welfare and viewed labour simply as a factor and cost in production.1 Electrolytic Zinc’s (EZ) industrial welfarism was heavily influenced by the Collins House experience and the company wished to remake both the workplace and the surrounding community. Many of the Collins House directors and senior technocrats such as W.S. Robinson, Gerald Mussen and Herbert Gepp were influenced by the ‘New Liberalism’ with its concerns about efficiency, labour productivity and cooperation.2 The Collins House approach, Eklund argues, brought together the dominant class’ industrial and cultural agenda to produce a unique expression at the local level. The labour management approaches of such dominant companies reveal a community influenced by the employer and illuminates industrial and cultural points of resistance.3

EZ put in place a broad industrial welfare programme that centred on housing and cooperative activities. The EZ housing scheme at Lutana represented a bold attempt at a Garden City and drew its design inspiration from Ebenezer Howard’s concept of small community based garden cities with public ownership of land. This had its antecedents in the ideas of the English utopian socialists such as Edward Bellamy and William Morris.4 It represents a particular attempt at localism where an employer, through architects, seeks to manipulate the conceived space and fragment working class community5 and offers the employer the ability to extend their strategies beyond the workplace and into the surrounding community6 and create a sense of dependency.7 The cooperative activities drew more explicitly from the broader Collins House experience8 and represented an attempt to reform the worker outside the factory gates to deliver greater efficiency and workforce loyalty. The contradictions in this approach and local worker indifference saw EZ modify the design and scale of its housing and many of its cooperative activities and reveals points of worker resistance.

EZ’s background

EZ was part of the Collins House group, an alliance of Anglo-Australian lead-zinc interests that had largely been based in Broken Hill that were linked through materials, capital and interlocking directorships.9 Along with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP) this group dominated heavy manufacturing development in the inter war period10 and introduced many new management practices into Australia. A number of these were first put in place at the Port Pirie lead smelters.11 The establishment of EZ at Risdon, Hobart, was brought about by a number of factors namely the decline of Britain as an economic force, government encouragement of manufacturing industries and the favourable orientation of most federal governments towards tariffs that favoured manufacturing interests. With a suitable political and economic climate, the availability of a vast amount of tailings from Broken Hill, and the development of the new electrolytic smelting process meant that the material and technology was available to enable the Collins House group to produce zinc economically. Tasmania’s cheap hydro electricity provided the incentive to establish the factory at Risdon in Hobart.12

EZ’s first General Manager, Herbert Gepp, initially worked as an engineer with the Zinc Corporation in Broken Hill13 and, as proponent of the New Liberalism, argued that for Australia to become a self-contained independent nation it required national efficiency, the maintenance of an ethical as opposed to a materialistic attitude of mind and the development of the spirit of industrial citizenship. He attributed the poor relations between labour, management and capital to the parties’ ignorance of the others needs. He argued that employees wanted:Firstly, health; secondly security of employment … thirdly insurance against being dragged down to the depths financially if, unfortunately, he should be sick and unable to work; fourthly decent housing conditions; fifthly a fair margin between the cost of living and his income; sixthly, good education and a chance in life for his children; and, seventhly reasonable social and civic rights – all of which, summed up, imply a minimum amount of happiness.14

This minimum amount of happiness could be achieved by co-operation with the employer’s role being to take a keen interest in the lives of all their employees, develop a spirit of industrial and civic citizenship, inaugurate cooperative councils which would reduce the cost of living and educate the workers in economics.15

Technocrats, such as Gepp, held a view of nationalism that moulded class interests with industrial independence. This fraction of the new industrial ruling class16 took a view that argued for Australia’s independence from imperial interests17 and saw the development of mining and manufacturing capacity was central to this. National efficiency was central to this independence and would be achieved on the working class outside the workplace. Gepp anticipated that EZ’s industrial welfare, in particular its housing and health initiatives, would create efficiency in the workplace by cooperation outside the factory gates and this new spirit would see the end of class conflict and industrial action. Although at Port Pirie the trade unions were able to offer a critique of the company’s industrial welfare programmes,18 at EZ the company had assiduously used the state Wages Board system to marginalise trade unions from the plant and use its own Works Committee to influence wage setting and act as a union substitute.19 EZ was therefore spared the necessity of using welfarism to directly suppress unionism although this does not preclude the possibility of welfarism acting as a union substitute.

Communal life

The EZ Company was part of the Collins House Group and was incorporated in Victoria in 1916 and, under Gepp’s watchful eye, construction began at Risdon, five miles from Hobart.20 The Zinc Works were isolated by open paddocks from the neighbouring mainly working class suburbs of Moonah, Glenorchy and the New Town, the main source of its workforce. Economics and technology made the Zinc Works a continuously operating plant producing zinc 24 hours a day and enabled Gepp to obtain permission from Collins House to commence an adjacent housing scheme. The initial construction and operation of the factory would require in excess of 1,000 workers and there were concerns that the poor condition, scarcity and costliness of rental and owner/buyer housing in Hobart would make it difficult for EZ to attract a workforce. As well the housing scheme would place the workforce close at hand to deal with emergencies or any other unexpected needs. If the Works could not be intimately close to the workforce, then Gepp would build a village that would bring the workforce intimately close to the Works.21

In 1918 the company bought eleven and a half acres at Risdon, known as Large’s estate, as the site of the Lutana village. Further land, which became known as the Orpwood estate, was purchased in 1919 on the high side of Bowen Road, just above Large’s estate.22 EZ initially proposed to build about 60 houses on Large’s estate for the accommodation of its employees23 and leave Orpwood’s estate undeveloped in the short term. In 1919 the eminent Melbourne architect Walter Butler was hired to facilitate the planning of the village. Butler trained in England and was associated with the Arts and Crafts and domestic revival circles centred on William Morris and Norman Shaw.24

Butler was instructed to prepare a scheme for an economical garden settlement. He advised that the land, although hilly, was picturesque and healthy and capable of carrying 200 houses and that the cheapest way of creating the village was to plan the entire scheme and construct as large a number of houses at the same time as possible. The houses should be sound, substantial and comfortable and, whilst the employees should be able to express their views upon the type of houses to be built, he thought the modern type should be adopted.25 Butler proposed that the settlement should have a varied design and appearance and a mixture of single and double storey, detached and semi-detached houses.26 He argued that workers would not purchase the houses unless payments were over comparatively short terms and exceeded rents by only a small amount.27 EZ agreed that the houses should be rented but with inducements to purchase. Butler calculated that the houses would only be attractive if rents or purchase costs were 3/9 per week less than cost. It was, Butler believed, fair to assume that the scheme would help to make the men content and calculated that if the Company benefited from better labour to the extent of 3d a day it would wipe out the loss of endowing the scheme with £1,950 per annum.28 Thus specific economic calculations were made where the housing expenditure was calculated against the imputed cost of labour unrest.

On the basis of Butler’s report, Gepp recommended to Collins House that 200 houses be constructed. As was the case at Port Pirie this was seen as a necessity to secure an adequate supply of skilled and reliable workers29 with Gepp declaring that the ‘scarcity, poor quality and inaccessibility from the Works of suitable homes render the creation of a settlement an urgent matter in the interests of security, efficiency and the contentment of the Company’s labour supply’. The houses could be either rented or purchased, with care being taken to ensure that the lower paid men were allotted a large share of the houses.30

In October 1919, with the scheme’s infrastructure in place, Butler suggested this aspect of the design could be left to EZ’s Hobart staff, leaving him free to concentrate on the houses, gardens, enclosures and the planting and decorating of the reserves.31 However the Collins House directors were of the view that Butler’s designs were not always economical and in September 1919 decided it was unnecessary to retain his services.32 At Gepp’s suggestion another Melbourne architect, A.G. Stephenson, who was later involved in planning the Yallourn Garden City in Victoria,33 was contracted to complete the Lutana scheme and instructed to reduce design costs.34 The led to a move away from the concept of a garden suburb and towards cheaper housing. Stephenson believed it was questionable whether the type of tradesman EZ wished to employ would live in such houses and argued that to have two different standards of housing in the village would ‘certainly bring severe criticism and discontent between the occupants’. He was of the opinion that EZ needed to decide either to erect more expensive, sound houses on Orpwood’s estate or cheaper, smaller and more accessible houses at Moonah only 15 minutes walk from the Works. These could be occupied by labourers working on the factory construction and then sold with the profits put into developing Orpwood’s estate. The workmen the Company wished to retain could then move into the village.35 Stephenson explicitly linked the quality of the housing scheme with the attraction and retention of skilled and desirable labour. The housing for the unskilled and less desirable could be erected on the assumption it would ultimately be used to subsidise the skilled labour’s housing.

Stephenson recommended that the Company should proceed with the Orpwood’s scheme on the basis that ‘the happy housing conditions there will bring more quickly than anything else the benefits which the industry needs’. On the contrary in the Moonah scheme:This Esprit de Corps would be lacking-the spirit of community life centred on one object would not be there. No encouragement would be given to that communal interest focussed in one spot which is so potent a factor in obtaining maximum efficiency. This, after all, is the ultimate aim. Communal life, common interests and healthy conditions, have been proved to be the greatest factors in bringing about industrial rest and spirit of co-operation between the workman and master and vice versa.36

It was anticipated industrial welfare housing would bring a convergence of interest between employer and employee interests and reduce industrial unrest.

The construction of the more austere houses proceeded with 31 houses occupied, one vacant, five nearing completion and seven under construction by early 1921.37 In spite of all the planning and construction work the housing shortage remained acute38 and was proving to be more expensive than initially anticipated.39 In 1921 a downturn in metal prices caused the dismissal of approximately 350 workers and housing construction to be shelved. But, as those houses that had been commenced were almost completed, the time was deemed ripe for the development of a stronger civic sense among the tenants. As with other company towns, community spirit was associated with the control of public space and remaking local society through notions of belonging and commitment.40 Much of the day to day running of the housing scheme had been vested in the Housing Trustees which consisted of two Company representatives and six employee representatives.41
The Housing Trustees proposed that the tenants should establish a General Purpose Committee that would be responsible for over sighting discipline, care of property, communal improvements and the formation of a club for social and recreational purposes. Within its scope were schemes such as care and cultivation of the orchard, a common chicken run and milk supply, the development of a playing area for the children, rubbish disposal, a small rifle club, and improvement of communications on a cooperative basis.42 Such a Local Improvement Committee was formed by the residents of Lutana and in May 1921 was about to embark on a tree planting scheme.43 It would seem that Lutana was developing much as EZ desired. After a tour of inspection by a member of the Housing Trustees and Company officer it was reported that ‘It was a pleasure to find that the great majority of houses were well kept and clean inside and that progress in front gardens and kitchen gardens is as well advanced as it is’. There were two miscreants whose houses did not measure up to the Company’s desired standard of cleanliness who were to be warned and evicted if improvement did not occur.44

In March 1922 Gepp reported to Collins House that once again the housing shortage was becoming acute. Hobart house rentals were rising and a number of staff members were looking for accommodation. At this stage 41 houses had been completed and the foundations of a further 14 houses laid.45 EZ’s Industrial Officer, A.W. Hutchin believed that if more houses were built ‘we shall add to the number of employees living in the village who are, by that much, more closely identified with the Company and its interests’. He pointed out that both C.R. Baker, Secretary of the Cooperative Council, and himself lived in the village and had established a very intimate touch with the employees and it was to the advantage of the Company that this nucleus should gradually grow. Within the village a feeling of solid commitment to the Company might be developed which, in times of stress, might have a most profound influence and senior Company officers could be available in emergencies.46

In spite of these perceived benefits, the Board of Directors believed the current depressed financial situation militated against the construction of further houses. Gepp insisted and suggested that, instead of five houses being built at Lutana, a community hall and recreation area should be constructed. Gepp was aware of the potentially placating effects of Company housing on the workforce arguing:The need for provision of facilities for the development of the social life of the village, removed as it is from the city, is eminently desirable … and we feel sure that it would afford an opportunity for our industrial officers who live at Lutana to develop the community spirit as we should like to see it developed.47

Community would not be allowed to develop in an organic manner but would be engineered
by management.

In 1923 the company established a Cooperative Building Fund that would allow the Housing Trustees to assess the suitability of the employees, with serious consideration given to their character, to borrow up to £750 to build or purchase houses.48 In 1923 the apparent poor demand for the expensive rental housing at Lutana49 caused EZ to modify its plans to build another 180 houses and instead proposed to sell the land at Orpwood’s estate to employees under the Cooperative Building Fund.50 The Hobart architects Hutchinson and Walker produced a more utilitarian design layout for Orpwood’s block and eliminated a playground, village green and nine conjoined houses from the design. The proposed facilities and houses were of a cheaper design and, although there were plans to extend the recreation reserve, it was a far cry from the originally planned model garden suburb.51 Although the blocks were offered at cost price, only 17 of the 103 blocks sold,52 with the vacant subdivision a testimony to the degradation of the original model garden village concept. The vision of a large harmonious village at Lutana did not eventuate on the scale initially outlined in 1918. In 1925 some 15 per cent of the rental houses were vacant. This was attributed to a prejudice against the concrete houses, the employee’s ability to obtain finance through the Cooperative Housing scheme had deprived the company of some good tenants whilst EZ’s wages allowed people to choose to live closer to the city and the company’s rail concessions allowed them to live some distance from the works.53 As Eklund found at Cockle Creek, the ready availability of transport to and from the Works enabled the workforce to scatter through the Hobart suburbs and weakened the influence of welfarist policies aimed at engineering the social and community life of workers.54 By 1926 the Company believed the housing scheme had fulfilled its duty, which was to meet the housing shortage and stabilise employees in their own homes,55 and as the value of houses had dropped there was little purpose in building new homes.56

The Company’s involvement with Lutana shifted to day-to-day maintenance of the village and vigilance over peoples’ behaviour at Lutana. Inspections of the houses continued with the occasional report of houses being kept ‘in a very dirty condition and the children apparently not controlled’.57 During the 1931 depression EZ cut workers’ wages by 10 per cent and reduced rentals by 10 per cent on all EZ houses.58 Some tenants were unable to keep up with their rental payments and either left or were evicted from their houses. EZ hired a collection agency to obtain the outstanding rentals. Some, such as Mrs Glidden whose husband had been killed at the Works and children had been retrenched, offered to pay some rental and requested that her son and daughters be employed at the Works.59 Others, such as Mrs Brockman, revealed the depth of anger and frustration. She told EZ that if they had given her husband work she would have been able to pay.I did not think that you would put your foot on me like that when you knew the way we was when we left you … you big men don’t care a scrap whether us poor wretches live or die you have your regular income you don’t know what it is to be without food there is all my family with hardly a boot to their feet there are better boots in the rubbish tip …. a big company like the zinc ought not miss a few pounds like that you could help poor people like us if you tried but you would not do that you would rather crush and keep us down.60

Mrs Brockman received a letter from EZ stating that the collection agency had been withdrawn and she should pay when she could.61

Although decent housing conditions were one aspect of Gepp’s minimum amount of happiness, in practice EZ’s planned garden village fulfilled a more mundane role. Management saw the benefits of the village as attracting skilled labour to the isolated Works, reducing industrial action and minimising the effects of breakdowns. Once the village was established the company worked assiduously to create a spirit of community. The Housing Trustees played a central role in maintaining physical and moral order in the village with those unwilling or unable to comply removed. In spite of the company’s considerable investment in housing there were contradictions. The Collins House directors’ concerns with costs saw a significant reduction in the number of houses and a degradation of the concept of a garden village. The workforce largely preferred to live away from the works. EZ’s subsidised rail fares and the cost of the housing played a significant part in this decision and it may be that the company’s overbearing influence in the village dissuaded others. Mrs Brockman certainly felt little gratitude towards the company. These tensions played out in such a way that the village ultimately bore little resemblance to Herbert Gepp’s original concept of a model garden village.

Common interests and healthy conditions

Although housing formed a part of EZ’s welfare strategy, other aspects were aimed at a much broader part of the workforce and encompassed recreational and health facilities. As at Port Pirie,62 the Cooperative Council was instrumental in running and organising many of the welfare activities. The EZ Cooperative Council was formed in 1918 ‘for the purpose of participating in and controlling a scheme for the supply and sale of the necessities of life on a cooperative basis to the employees of EZ’. The Council consisted of three members appointed by the General Manager, and another nine elected annually by all the employees.63 The Cooperative Council undertook to organise the worker’s lives outside the factory gates. At various times the Cooperative Council, as was the case at Port Pirie,64 undertook commercial activities with varying levels of success such as selling firewood,65 meat,66 and a cooperative store.67 The Council organised a number of social and sporting clubs and activities such as an orchestra, lacrosse, cricket and football teams, a brass band and tennis club and an annual picnic. As with the other cooperative activities many of these had chequered histories.68

Although EZ claimed its working conditions were no less healthy than any other industry, and were supported by governmental sources, as in other sections of the metalliferous industry,69 some workers endured difficult circumstances. M.L. Daly, who worked in the Cell Room, recounted the conditions endured by the cell inspectors:These men are continually subject to a constant spray of sulphate. …. The cell inspector is given a respirator, but it does not protect him the way it should. When a man breaks out into a perspiration it runs and carries the sulphate into his eyes and a man will come out with eyes like raw beef.

The conditions endured by the cell strippers were worse with:more accidents in this particular line than in any other part of the Works. Only last week a man had his arm caught and some of his fingers severed… The Merit Board shows 22 accidents – one a fortnight – in 10 months … They call it ‘Port Arthur’ and themselves the ‘chain gang’.70

While in some circumstances the labour process acts as an impetus for mobilisation,71 at EZ it drew the workforce towards the company’s welfare activities.

After the Cooperative Council had established many of the welfare activities EZ management were concerned that the Cooperative Council had insufficient to do. They had recently received Federal Court decision exempting the company from the operation of Federal awards and concluded that this ‘tends to make us more than ever a self governing industrial community in the matter of wages and conditions, and the natural corollary of this is a well thought out programme of social service also conducted on self governing lines’.72 Conscious of the poor state of many employees dental health, management suggested to the Cooperative Council that ‘Cooperation between all employees of this Company, and the Company itself must undoubtedly concern itself most seriously in assisting and improving the general health of the community’73 and that the company would assist with establishing a dental clinic. The Directors supported this approach and, although they believed there was not a health problem at Risdon, there was a relationship between good health and efficiency, and that the establishment of a dental clinic deserved consideration if only from the point of making the employees more efficient.74

An Insurance Society was established in 1919 with the impetus apparently coming from Gepp and Gerald Mussen who had been involved in setting up a similar scheme at Port Pirie.75 The aim of the Society was to pay sickness benefits to the workers. Membership was voluntary and cost 6d a week and would pay £50 to the family of a member killed at work.76 In 1922 a separate Life Assurance Association was established where for membership of 3d a week an employee’s kin would receive £100 in the event of death.77 The association appears to have been well patronised with 92 per cent of the workers members in 1927.78 The Collins House Directors were enthusiastic about the scheme. Other employers’ experience of life assurance had been that it paid dividends in terms of the loyalty, goodwill and greater efficiency of the workers and was increasingly being used to get closer to their workers and show interest in their welfare.79 In 1920 a Medical Union was established to enable employees to receive free medical treatment and prescriptions from the Union Medical Officer at the Works80 at a cost of 9d a week.81 The company’s dramatic reduction of its workforce in 1921 to around 45 daily paid workers caused the fund to experience some financial difficulties. However after 1927 the workforce increased and over 98 per cent of workers chose to become members which enabled the fund to trade out of its difficulties.82

The Cooperative Council sought to organise the workers’ lives outside the factory gates. It supplied commercial services and organised sporting and social clubs with varying measures of success. It was in the area of medical related schemes that the Council achieved its greatest success. The Collins House directors saw this as a way to demonstrate cooperation between employers and employees and assist efficiency. Unsurprisingly, given the nature of some of the working conditions at EZ, the workers participated in these schemes. Whether this enabled the company to get closer to the workers is a moot point for the leaders of some of these welfare schemes were instrumental in forming the Zinc Workers Union some 15 years later.83 This reinforces Balnave’s observation that the lessons of cooperation learnt in welfare activities could be transferred to the formation of a union.84


At a time when company welfare schemes were limited to a small number of companies, the Collins House group of companies were at the forefront of such schemes. At EZ these were driven by the General Manager Herbert Gepp who, influenced by the New Liberalism, believed that efficiency and cooperation could be achieved by employers taking an active interest in their workers lives outside the factory gates. This saw plans for an extensive model garden city drawn up and a number of cooperative activities put in place.

Whilst Gepp took an approach that stressed the benefits of housing for the whole Works, the Collins House directors took a more narrow view. Their concerns over the cost of the scheme saw a degradation of the original model garden village scheme both in terms of scale and design. Within the village the Housing Trustees oversaw the development of community spirit and discipline where those who were unwilling or unable to comply, such as Mrs Glidden and Brockman, could be evicted. As Patmore suggests, within a particular space localism may not be shared by all groups.85 This appears to have been the case with EZ’s garden village at Lutana where the workforce largely rejected the company housing. The village was seen as remote from Hobart, the housing expensive, the concrete houses viewed with suspicion and EZ’s subsidised railway tickets enabled people to live some distance from the Works. The second aspect of EZ’s industrial welfare programme was the activities run by the Cooperative Council. Although the Council’s commercial activities and social and sporting clubs had a chequered history, the medical related activities were embraced by the workforce. The Collins House directors were enthusiastic about the medical schemes and anticipated they would deliver greater efficiency and workforce loyalty. Doubtless many workers saw these benefits as necessary given the difficult working conditions in sections of the Works.

Overall EZ’s industrial welfare schemes had uneven outcomes. The tensions between Gepp’s idealism and the Collins House directors’ concern with profitability saw the scale and intention of the model garden village change. Some of this was attributable to the workforce’s indifference to many of the welfare schemes. The majority of workers only participated in the medical related schemes with this most likely a necessity due to the often harsh working conditions inside the Works rather than any desire to engage with the company. Although EZ had been able to banish unionism and implement its welfarism strategy free from any trade union criticism or the necessity to use welfarism to blunt unionism, this did not mean that the workforce would engage with welfarism nor signal any reconciliation between capital and labour. Reforming and engaging with the workforce outside the factory gates proved to be more difficult than Gepp and the Collins House directors anticipated and offers the prospect that, while companies may wish to dominate the community, the local provides tensions and points of resistance.


1.      J.R. Hay, ‘”For the benefit of the company”: the development of employers’ welfare schemes in Australia, 1880-1980′, unpublished typescript, pp. 14-15.

2.      T. Rowse, Australian Liberalism and National Character, Kibble Books, Melbourne, 1978.

3.      E. Eklund, ‘”Intelligently Directed Welfare Work”?: Labour Management Strategies in Local Context: Port Pirie,
1915-29′, Labour History, no. 76, 1999.

4.      B. McNeill and L. Woolley, Architecture From the Edge: The 20th Century in Tasmania, Montpelier Press, North Hobart, 2002, pp. 38-9.

5.      H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford, 1993; G. Patmore, ‘Localism and Labour: Lithgow
1869-1932′, Labour History, no. 78, 2000.

6.      E. Eklund, ‘Managers, Workers, and Industrial Welfarism: Management Strategies at ER&S and the Sulphide Corporation, 1895-1929’, Australian Economic History Review, vol. 37, no. 2, 1997, p. 138.

7.      N. Balnave, ‘Company-Sponsored Recreation in Australia: 1890-1965’, Labour History, No. 85, 2003, p. 131.

8.      Eklund, ‘Intelligently Directed Welfare Work’.

9.      P. Richardson, ‘The Origins and Development of the Collins House Group, 1915-51’, Australian Economic History Review, vol. 27, no. 1, 1987.

10.    Eklund, ‘Intelligently Directed Welfare Work’, p. 79.

11.    Eklund, Managers, Workers, and Industrial Welfarism, pp. 149-50.

12.    BHAS Records, W.S. Robinson Papers, EZ Co, 1937, Melbourne University Archives (MUA); BHAS Records,
W.S. Robinson Papers, W.S. Robinson to W.L. Baillieu, 28 January 1916, MUA.

13.    M. Roe, ‘H.W. Gepp. His Qualification as Chairman of the Development and Migration Commission’, Papers and Proceedings of the Tasmanian Historical Research Association, vol. 32, no. 3, 1985, p. 97.

14.    H.W. Gepp, ‘Australia Self-Contained’, Science and Industry, vol. 1, no. 4, 1919, p. 223.

15.    Ibid., p. 223.

16.    R. Connell and T. Irving, Class Structure in Australian History, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1980.

17.    Rowse, Australian Nationalism.

18.    Eklund, ‘Intelligently Directed Welfare Work’.

19.    R. Barton, ‘Goose Clubs and Wages Boards: Marginalising Unions at Electrolytic Zinc, Tasmania, 1920-22’, paper presented at Work, Organisation, Struggle, the seventh national labour history conference, ANU, 19-21 April 2001.

20.    P. Cochrane, Industrialization and Dependence, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, 1980.

21.    EZ Records, A/3-3, ‘C.M Cooper’, Archives Office of Tasmania (AOT).

22.    A.I. Burrows, ‘An Examination of the town planning idea of the Garden Suburb, and its application to industrial management within the co-operative movement in the early 1920’s at the Electrolytic Zinc Company, Risdon, Tasmania’. BA (Hons) thesis, University of Tasmania, 1978, p. 47.

23.    EZ Records, A/1-1, File Butler, Macintyre and Butler, AOT.

24.    H. Fraser and R. Joyce, The Federation House, Lansdowne Press, Sydney, 1987, p. 111.

25.    EZ Records, A/1-1, Precis of Housing Scheme by Mr W.R Butler, AOT.

26.    EZ Records, A/1-1, ‘Butler W.R Architect’, 12 February 1919, AOT.

27.    EZ Records, A/3-3, File Coop Council Housing Sub-Committee’s Recommendations, 26 March 1919, AOT.

28.    EZ Records, A/1-1, Precis of Report on Housing Scheme by Mr W.R Butler, AOT.

29.    Eklund, ‘Intelligently Directed Welfare Work’, p. 135.

30.    EZ Records, A/1-1, Butler & Warlow-Davies to Collins House, 19 August 1919, AOT.

31.    EZ Records, A/1-1, Butler to Gepp, 27 October 1919, AOT.

32.    EZ Records, A/2-1, Minutes of General Staff Meetings Melbourne, AOT.

33.    M. Fletcher, Digging Up People for Coal: A History of Yallourn, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 2002.

34.    EZ Records, A/2-2, Gepp to Major J.S. Teulon, 2 December 1920, AOT.

35.    EZ Records, A/5-1, Stephenson to Meredith, 19 July 1920, AOT.

36.    EZ Records, A/5-1, Stephenson to Meredith, 19 July 1920, AOT.

37.    EZ Records, A/7-1, Meredith to Warden of Glenorchy, 21 February 1921; EZ Records, A/2-2, Gepp to Major Teulon,
2 December 1920, AOT.

38.    EZ Records, A/2-2, Gepp to Major Teulon, 2 December 1920, AOT.

39.    EZ Records, A/7-1, Memo Assistant General Manager, 16 February 1921 AOT.

40.    Fletcher, Digging UpPeople, p. 85; Balnave, `Company-Sponsored Recreation’, p. 140.

41.    C.R. Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, Risdon, n.d, p. 38.

42.    EZ Records, A/7-1, Hutchin to Gepp, 4 April 1921, AOT.

43.    The World, 18 May 1921.

44.    EZ Records, A/7-1, C.R Baker to Gepp, 28 April 1921, AOT.

45.    Burrows, An examination of the town planning idea of the Garden Suburb, p. 54.

46.    BHAS Records, Fraser Papers, Hutchin to Gepp, 31 March 1922, MUA.

47.    EZ Records, A/10-4, Gepp to Collins House, 14 October 1922, AOT.

48.    Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, p. 38-9.

49.    EZ Records, A/24-4, Company’s Subsidies in Cooperative Activities for the 6 Months Ended 31 Dec 1923,
AOT; EZ Records, A/2-2, Gepp to Stephenson, 8 July 1920, AOT.

50.    EZ Records, A/17-4, Gepp to Collins House, 22 June 1923, AOT.

51.    EZ Records, A/17-4, Stephenson to Gepp, 23 October 1923, AOT.

52.    Burrows, An examination of the town planning idea of the Garden Suburb, p. 58.

53.    EZ Records, Meredith to Collins House, 26 June 1926.

54.    Eklund, ‘Managers, Workers, and Industrial Welfarism’, p. 143.

55.    EZ Records, A/39-3, Hutchin to the Deputy General Manager, 11 January 1926, AOT.

56.    EZ Records, A/39-3, Deputy General Manager to General Manager, 13 July 1926, AOT.

57.    EZ Records, A/39-3, J.A. Hurburgh to the General Manager, 3 September 1926, AOT.

58.    EZ Records, A/79-4, Minute File Properties Rents, 23 February 1931, AOT.

59.    EZ Records, A/73-1, Mrs Glidden to EZ, 9 June 1931, AOT.

60.    EZ Records, A/73-1, Mrs Brockman to EZ, 25 June 1931, AOT.

61.    EZ Records, A/73-1, File Cooperative Houses Rent, AOT.

62.    Eklund, ‘Intelligently Directed Welfare Work’, p. 131.

63.    Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, p. 12.

64.    Eklund, ‘Intelligently Directed Welfare Work’, p. 141.

65.    EZ Records, A/1-2, File Cooperative Council, 30 October 1918, AOT.

66.    Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, p. 18.

67.    EZ Records, A/3-3, File Cooperative Council, AOT.

68.    EZ Records, A/31-3, Meredith to Secretary Cooperative Council, 14 December 1919; EZ Records, A/2-1, File Notices; EZ Records, A/1-2, Meredith to Secretary Cooperative Council, 10 February 1920, AOT.

69.    P. Cochrane, ‘Anatomy of a Steel Works: The Australian Iron and Steel Company Port Kembla, 1935-1939’,
Labour History, no. 57, 1989, pp. 64-5.

70.    LID 1/40, EZ, Co., 1467/87 EZ Wages Board, 9 January 1925, AOT.

71.    Cochrane, `Anatomy of a Steel Works’, p. 62.

72.    EZ Records, A/10-4, Hutchin to Gepp, 9 June 1922, AOT.

73.    EZ Records, A/1-2, Memo Cooperative Council, 8 March 1920, AOT.

74.    BHAS Records, Fraser Papers, Box 1/33/8, Notes by G. Swinburne on visit of Colin Fraser and himself to Risdon 1/2/23 to 6/2/23, MUA.

75.    Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, p. 4; Eklund, ‘Intelligently Directed Welfare Work’, p. 131.

76.    Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, p. 4.

77.    Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, p. 4.

78.    EZ Records, A/46-3, File Cooperative Council 1927, 19 January 1927, AOT.

79.    BHAS Records, Fraser Papers, Box 1/33/8, Notes by Hon. George Swinburne on visit of Colin Fraser and himself
to Risdon 1/2/23 to 6/2/23, MUA.

80.    Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, p. 27.

81.    EZ Records, A/1-2, Meredith to Secretary Cooperative Council, 24 June 1920, AOT.

82.    Baker, The Human Story of Risdon, p. 27.

83.    A. Alexander, The Zinc Work, Pasminco Metals – EZ, Hobart, 1992, p. 58.

84.    Balnave, ‘Company-Sponsored Recreation’, p. 146.

85.    Patmore, ‘Localism and labour’, p. 67.

By Ruth Barton