Department of Parliamentary Library - Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Department of Parliamentary Library. Answer: Inteoduction: In the present report, an attempt has been made to give the details of the 1998 Australian waterfront dispute and also to explore the issues concerning employment relations, effective workplace reform management, examining the role of various stakeholders involved in the dispute and also to explain the different types of industrial action that took place in this case and the legal matters involved in it. The 1998 waterfront dispute can be easily described as a historical event and is also among the most significant industrial reforms of the 1980s. The impact of this event can be seen on the entire waterfront industry. Due to this event, the traditional role of Maritime Union of Australia as well as the other trade unions had to be re-examined. In the present report, the issues covered include the background all the causes of the dispute, the industrial actions that were taken during the dispute, relevant legal considerations, these short-term as well as the long-term impact on the di spute on different stakeholders, and also on the industry and the conflict resolution strategies that were adopted in this case. As Australia started to rise as a significant economic power, by 1990, the docks in Australia had seen nearly a rise of 64% in the amount of cargo that was being imported/exported as compared to the 1980s. The technological advances that were introduced during this period by containerization and Waterfront Industry Reform Authority (WIRA) resulted in significant changes taking place in the world practices of stevedoring companies by decreasing the labor intensive methods. As the Howard government was concerned with the perceived legging behind in industrial competitiveness, for instances of the poor crane rates (the rate of containers being shifted per hour), the Workplace Relations Act, 1996 was introduced with a view to make labor more productive and effective. Did any external business environment factors contribute to the dispute between the parties? If so, explain the relationship between these factors and the dispute: This was the time when it was decided by Patricks Stevedoring that for the purpose of retaining competitiveness, the company has to reduce costs, particularly the cost of labor, and similarly it needed to improve its productivity rates. This was the time when a study was released by the Productivity Commission. In this study, among other issues, it was revealed that over-manning at the docks was one of the factors behind poor international productivity rates. Therefore, supported by the findings of this study, Chris Corrigan, who was the CEO of Patricks, arrived at the conclusion that reforms should be pursued which involved the creation of redundancies for the workers and also implanting non-union casual labor. However, while planning these moves, there were no consultations with the workers already Maritime Union of Australia as a result of which the resistance to these changes worsened and it fueled the conflict. Before this dispute, a restructure as implemented by Patricks according to which all the labor working for it was internally outsource four different companies. All these companies are owned by Patricks group. The assets of stevedoring that were earlier owned by Patricks stevedoring were transferred to these companies that were a part of the Patricks group. In this way the employer companies that entered into labor supply contracts with the actual operations divisions of Patricks. Under these circumstances, on seven April, 1990 the labor supply agreements were terminated by the Patricks group with its employer companies. After losing the major assets of these employer companies, these companies are placing the administration as a result of insolvency. Then Patricks got involved into new and previously arranged agreements with the National Farmers Federation so that it can get non-unionized labor. The effect was that Patricks was sued by the MUA, and they made a request to the federal court that the earlier employment arrangements should be reinstated during the length of the trial and the involvement of an illegal conspiracy that was also backed by the government to particularly sack the MUA workers that was in breach of the provisions of Workplace Relations Act. It was specifically claimed that the owner entities could not be allowed to act on the purported termination of labor supply agreements created with the employer entities. The labor supply agreements were to be considered as remaining on foot. It was also claimed that these agreements cannot be terminated as 14 days written notice has not been given to the MUA in advance. The owner entities cannot be allowed to require labor services from some other source and the companies in administration cannot be allowed to do anything that may result in the termination of the employees of Patricks. In the same way, it was sought from the court that the other companies forming a part of the Patricks group would not be allowed to dispose of their assets other than in the normal course of business. The MUA was granted leave to take action against the companies in administration. Analyse the dispute from the point of view of each relevant stakeholders or actors in the dispute (such as the employer, employees, unions, employer associations and State and Federal Governments). Consider the goals of each stakeholder in the dispute, and the industrial strategies or tactics used to forward their claim: In this case the judge arrived at the and that their reasons were present to believe that the only reason due to which the corporate restructure was implemented by Patricks was due to the fact that the employees were members of MUA and on the other hand Patricks wanted to dismiss these employees and hire the workers were not part of the union. As a result, these orders were made by the court. In reply to these orders of the court, Patricks made an appeal to the High Court. However, in the decision of 6-1, the earlier decision was upheld with a minor amendment that the administrators of the labor supply companies were given freedom to make redundant some of the workers that have been hired earlier. Industrial actions have been defined by the Industrial Relations Act as anything that has been done in contemplation or furtherance of trade dispute with a view to compel the employer or the employees to accept the demands of the employees or the employer. In the present case, Patricks took the following industrial action. Under the leadership of Chris Corrigan, extensive measures were taken by Patricks for the purpose of hiring nonunion workforce and to reduce the impact of MUA on its operations. Chris Corrigan met two former SAS commandos and asked them if ex-military personnel can be had for dock work as he wanted to replace the entire work force of the company. The ex-commandos agreed to this proposal and a company, Fynwest was formed for recruiting the personnel. After advertisements were issued in Army newspaper, nearly 80 persons were recruited for the operation and training was to be provided to them in Dubai. However, the International Transport Federation decided to boycott the Dubai ports in retaliation. As a result of strong pressure, UAE government decided to deport these men back to Australia. On seven April, 1998, suddenly all the unionized workers comprising 1400 permanent and 600 casual employees were sacked by Patrick stevedoring. This was done for the purpose of recruiting new nonunion workers. Immediately after the termination of the workers, a lockout was enforced by Patrick. This continued for more than a month. The company enjoyed complete support from the Federal government. The reason was that the Federal government also wanted to reduce the influence of the Union on the industry. A large number of security guards along with guard dogs entered the 17 wharves of Patrick throughout Australia and the workers were forced off the job. On the other hand, in this election was also taken by the MUA. Wildcat (not authorized by the union) and the rolling (in intervals of 48 hours for avoiding fine under Workplace Relations Act) strikes took place. However, the unions carefully condemned any violent protests. For example in one case, they revoked the membership of a person who had thrown a brick on the bus of non-union labor. In the same way, the kids were organized by the union, which blockaded the ports of Patricks to prevent the non-union workers from handling cargo that was being loaded or unloaded on the docks. Patrick sought, and also received an order from the court which barred the members of MUA from attending the blockade even if this order was largely ignored and at the same time, the police were not very enthusiastic to enforce this order as they feared a backlash or a riot. How was the dispute resolved?: It is clear that in case of this industrial dispute, there was a lack of effective communication. As a result, there was no chance that the dispute could have been resolved before its escalation. Generally, such a dispute needs to be referred to the AIRC (the industrial relations commission). Therefore the issue can be solved by arbitration or conciliation. But the ability of the AIRC to forcefully intervene in case of a dispute was taken away by the Workplace Relations Act, 1996. On the other hand, Patrick had refused to voluntarily refer this dispute to the commission and neither the federal government was willing to do so. In fact on the basis of the advice given by the Workplace Relations Minister, Peter Reith, the CEO of Patrick, Corrigan arguably deliberately made arrangements that the dispute could not be affected by the Industrial Relations Commission. In this regard, Peter Reith has stated that the Stevedores are required to use well-prepared strategies for the purpose of di smissing their workforce and quickly replacing them with another in a way that limit the chances of, for instance, an order by the Commission reinstating the current workforce. Probably this remains the reluctance of the government as well as Patrick to resolve the dispute by using methods like communication and negotiation and a willful disregard for industrial fallout and the unionized employees. Therefore despite the fact that one of the best arbitration systems was available, they did not have confidence in the AIRC. As they were trying to break the law, this could not be accepted by any arbitration commission. It was not surprising that both Peter Reith and Chris Corrigan were at least going to the Federal court and they wanted to get out of it in the High Court, because they were aware of the fact that they cannot win legitimately. The dispute was not related with negotiating work arrangements, but they were concerned about removing the MUA. Do you think the dispute was resolved effectively? Consider the implications of this dispute on Employment Relations in Australia: Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that in view of the decade of mounting issues, the waterfront dispute was a conflict that was bound to explode. However, unfortunately, along with the poor management of industrial relations by Patricks with its workers and unions along with the reluctance of the government and the company to have genuine negotiations, it can be said that in such a case even minor issues can escalate into a larger conflict if the issue is not handled with due sensitivity and appropriate communication. It can also be said that this dispute was not concerned with dock reforms or international competitiveness. The main reason behind this conflict was bursting the unions, particularly the MUA and Corrigan was used by the government to try and make an example. On the other hand, if genuine reforms would have been intended, the union would have cooperated and negotiated. However. They were willing to replace the unionized workers with Scabs. But in the opinion of Chris Corrigan, this dispute was the required catalyst for reform. He mentions in this regard that all he did was to accelerate the inevitable. He simply brought home the direction that we were heading. Although he admits that he may have done it in a dramatic way, but in the end. It was successful in achieving the desired results. In the end, it can be said that without significant industrial fallout, it was not possible to achieve the dock reforms. But in case the AIRC could have been invited to arbitrate in this matter, much of the cost related records and other negatives could have been avoided. Bibliography Sutcliffe, P. and Callus, R. Glossary of Australian Industrial Relations Terms, (ACIRRT/ACSM, 1994) p. 31 Hamilton, C. Productivity in Australian Container Terminals, Mimeo, the Australia Institute, 1998 Williams, P. 'Secret plan to cripple dock unions', The Australian Financial Review, 12 December 1997 O'Neill, S., A Preliminary Outline of the Waterfront Dispute, Current Issues Brief No.15 1997-98, Department of the Parliamentary Library, 12 May 1998 Petzal S, Abbot K, Timo N 2003, 'Australian Industrial Relations: In an Asian Context', Eruditions Publishing, Victoria, p.7 O'Neill, S., (14 September 1998). "The Waterfront Dispute: from High Court to Settlement". aph.gov.au. Retrieved 2017-05-08 Helen, T and Anne D., (2000) Waterfront: the battle that changed Australia. Doubleday.