It has taken an extraordinary amount time, money, energy and anxiety, but it at last appears that Australia is moving to efficiency on the waterfront. That can only be good news for Australian producers and consumers. But this has been one of the most disgraceful events in Australian industrial history. All parties — the union, Patrick’s stevedores, the Government, Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith, the National Farmers Federation — have much to be ashamed of. None come out with their credibility unstained.
The acceptance of wholesale reform by the Maritime Workers Union is an admission that things were in an appalling state before the dispute arose. The acceptance is also an admission that that state of affairs was unsustainable in the face of local and international competition. The union has accepted that half the 1400 workforce at Patrick’s Stevedores will be made redundant, and presumably a similar agreement will be made at the other main stevedoring company, P and O. It is an admission of over-manning by 100 per cent. That was being made for by Australian producers and consumers directly. And worse, the extra costs caused by the inefficiency probably forced some business out of Australia.
The union also accepted radical changes to work practices and the permitting of contracting out. Once again it was an admission that the union had garnered monopoly power to itself to the cost of Australians in general.
The union has only accepted the radical change needed to make Australian ports competitive in the face of its complete demise. There is nothing like a hanging in morning to concentrate the mind.
It seems that with the existence of the union at stake, the union’s leaders have been prepared to shed 700 jobs so it can stay in existence.
Before that, work practices on the Australian were so bad as to force the stevedoring company to take drastic action. The action, of course, turned out to be too drastic. First, we had the Dubai exercise to train non-union labour overseas. It was an underhand way of dealing with the problem, though not illegal and perhaps excusable under the circumstances, but for the fact it led to, or was part of, other less palatable events. The Dubai exercise led to the head of Patrick’s, Chris Corrigan, having to admit to lying to keep the exercise secret. It also dragged the Government in. It was also apparently part of a longer term plan to remove the union from the waterfront in apparent breach of the Workplace Relations Act.
Patrick’s also behaved badly, possibly illegally, in dismissing its union workers. Before that it had engaged in an artful corporate arrangement to attempt to deny those workers their entitlements. The Government must legislate to protect workers’ entitlements in the case of winding up.
The union had caused the company to take drastic action as more reasonable methods had not borne fruit. This new agreement shows there was a need for some volte force to break the impasse. But that does not excuse Patrick’s actions. In particular, it did not excuse the heavy-handed approach taken by Patrick’s after the MUA workers were dismissed with guards and dogs on the wharves.
The other party was the Government and its Minister for Workplace Relations, Peter Reith. From documents tabled in the Parliament, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Government had a fair knowledge of Patrick’s manoeuvres to rid itself of this turbulent union. It has led to a situation where the Opposition in Parliament feels it has enough evidence to accuse Mr Reith of misleading the Parliament and for observers to have grounds for believing that to be the case, particularly as Mr Reith’s denials have not be compelling. One could conclude that the Government and Mr Reith knew about the Dubai operation and knew that Patrick’s were determined to get rid of its unionised workforce in the face of the Workplace Relations Act which makes it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of membership of a union.
The Government went to far. In its legitimate concern that workers should have a freedom to choose and to be able to choose not to be a member of a union, it attacked union membership. The rights to voluntarily join a union or not join a union must be equally protected.
In the meantime the National Farmers’ Federation set up its own company to compete in the stevedoring industry with the aim of breaking the union monopoly on the wharves. The aim of breaking the monopoly was a reasonable one. But now the deal has been done between the MUA and Patrick’s and the prospect of an efficient waterfront without a union monopoly is bright, the NFF has abruptly ended its stevedoring venture and put all those people it employed out of work. One might wonder whether this was the intention all along — to abandon stevedoring once Patrick’s had become efficient (with a non-union force, but as it happens with a much-reformed MUA workforce). The workers the NFF employed have been pawns in this, even though they are at least getting a little more than usually legal entitlements on redundancy.
Lastly, the law itself has been brought into disrepute. The union and the stevedoring company launched several actions at each other for conspiracy, secondary boycott and other actions. The union also joined Mr Reith in the conspiracy action. Interim orders were made from time to time, but part of yesterday’s deal is for the main actions to be dropped. It seems the courts have been used as tool to pressure the other side. If there was a conspiracy and if there was a breach of the Trade Practices Act’s secondary-boycott provisions, it should be fully tested.
In short, this has been a shameful event in Australian industrial history.