In strict terms, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, found for union in the dispute over employment contracts made by CRA at its Weipa mine in North Queensland. But it was a pyrrhic victory.
The commission ruled that CRA must pay equal pay for equal work. That means it must pay members of the union the same pay as non-members for equal work. Two things flow from that. One is that workers are entitled to be members of a union, to be represented by a union and not to be discriminated against because they are a member of a union. The second is that workers need not be members of a union, need not have union representatives negotiate on their behalf, and can negotiate contracts with their employer as individuals.
This is the very position that most mainstream employers have been seeking for decades. It is an end to the closed shop. It is voluntary unionism and yet preserves a fundamental right of workers in liberal democracies to join unions if they want and to have a union represent them in negotiations.
The big snag for the ever-ready bevy of paid union officials who want to create work for themselves by entering the fray between workers and employers (for whom the officials do not work) is that the equal pay for equal work means precisely that. The union members would only get equal pay with the contract workers if they agreed to the same terms and conditions. It means not only accepting the higher pay, but accepting the flexible working arrangements that come with that. These might include flexible working hours with amortised overtime; agreement to use whatever new technology that comes along without special allowances; and agreement to undergo annual performance assessments to determine next year’s pay.
The last is of great importance. It means that after a fairly short time, it will be apparent that there is no such thing as equal work. The idea that humans can be slotted into occupational holes that carry certain pay rates always has been nonsense. Some individuals do better than others. Measuring this is inevitably a subjective judgment. CRA takes the view, quite reasonably, that the employer who pays the wage should make that judgment and measure the level of reward it should carry.
That, of course, will not suit the unions, commission and professional industrial relations officers (the industrial relations club) who hitherto have made a living out of making those judgments at an abstract level … determining, for example, that a Mechanic Grade 3 is entitled to $650 a week irrespective of whether it is eager John Smith or lethargic Jill Jones.
That said, there is always a role for an independent assessor to set reasonable minimums and a role for unions for those workers who want them with a recourse to an umpire.
The minimums and unions will go some way to preventing exploitative employers. Of greater importance in securing long-term economic prosperity for workers, though, is to ensure individuals can seek pay rises on merit and that their share of the cake is not reduced by the lazy and incompetent who unjustly get pay rises through some automatic process of the industrial relations club.
The Weipa case granted equal pay for equal work, but it also endorsed higher pay for better work. Ultimately, the latter will be of more import.