Victorian Trades Hall Council. The voice of Victorian workers since 1856.

• Inside Trades Hall
•  > Secretary's Report
•  > 2011 Archives

Employers desperate to end any concept of Rights at Work

3 May 2011

A recent dispute involving hardworking Sydney garbos attracted the interest of the national employers. They wanted to use it to try to blunt the union movement’s ongoing campaign to win back more rights at work, lost in recent years.

Most people know by now that the FairWork Act did not kill off all of the viciousness contained within Howard’s contemptuously named WorkChoices legislation.

Since the 2007 federal elections unions have been pushing to win better organising and bargaining rights as guaranteed by several ILO conventions in an ongoing, hard struggle.

A group of workers with JJ Richards, which has a contract for waste collections at Canterbury Council, recently voted for strike action when the company refused to bargain.

Employer associations like AMMA and AIG went ‘spare’, claiming the union and workers just can’t do that!

JJ Richards argued that “legal strike action” was only available during bargaining and since they refused to enter into talks, bargaining had not begun!

Under such logic employers across the country only had to never begin negotiations and workers would never be able to exercise their already limited right to legal industrial action!

This is why the big employer groups entered into this case, saying if they don’t challenge, workers in bigger industries like mining and manufacturing might take similar action, if their employers don’t bargain.

These employer peak bodies went further, claiming the JJ Richards dispute flew in the face of the intent of the Gillard Fair Work Act. AMMA spokesperson Steve Knott said publicly he was told by then IR Minister Gillard that “protected strike action” could only occur during the bargaining period.

The ACCI added their view, saying the JJ Richards dispute contradicted the ALP’s 2007 election commitment that the Fair Work Act would be “tough on industrial action”. The ACCI insisted the new Act was “designed to encourage orderly and constructive bargaining” yet now it appears “a union can leap straight into what should be last - resort strike action”.

The AIG’s Heather Ridout’s comments are very revealing in terms of comparing the Work Choices Act and the Fair Work Act:

“The right [that] existed to take industrial action regardless of the level of support [among] employees for a collective agreement was understandable under the voluntary bargaining system in [Work Choices]”.

“However, this right has no place under the Fair Work Act where bargaining is compulsory if the majority of employees support collective bargaining and where employers have no obligation to bargain if the majority of their employees do not want a collective agreement.”

In other words the Fair Work Act can be more restrictive than WorkChoices!

The JJ Richards dispute has occurred with a general back drop of ongoing debate about the fairness and effectiveness of the current federal IR legislation. Workplace Relations Minister Chris Evans has again ruled out any changes to the current Act. In a recent speech he said:

“On an almost daily basis I am confronted by media reports [that] typically feature a business organisation, an employer or a union blaming the Fair Work Act for their failure to achieve a desired outcome.”

This is a misrepresentation of the union movements concerns. Unions are not complaining about not getting ‘desired outcomes’, they are complaining about the severe restrictions in the Fair Work Act that thwart basic rights to: organise workers; have reasonable right of entry, recruit members, have job delegates who are not victimised and have meetings of workers in proper locations, as per ILO conventions. It is a furphy to claim unions are on about not being happy about ‘outcomes’; it’s about instead having enough rights at work so that an outcome can be persued!

Simply, the fundamentals are still not in place.

This misrepresentation of union concerns by the federal government is also reflected in the debate about the carbon tax.

Unions have expressed concerns about potential job losses and argue if the government is to go forward part of its planning, in fact its wider strategy should clearly include a transition phase that compensates for and consciously prepares for those who may face losing their jobs.

This is a wider public policy consideration, not just unions merely ‘talking to the constituencies’. Unions don’t make up their responses for the hell of it. They reflect the reality on the ground and don’t need politicians trying to undermine their genuine concerns with belittling, gratuitous commentary.

Similarly when unions talk about job losses occurring because of trade liberalisation and free trade agreements, that see unfair product dumping into the Australian economy, they are reflecting a real pulse from the workplace and the community.

The previous Victorian Brumby State Government floated the idea of phasing out the highly polluting Hazelwood Power Station. Unions met with the government for positive dialogue, agreeing be part of the solution not part of the problem. All they asked was that part of the phase down would include genuine job creation strategies that would accompany the eventual closure. In public statements, many aimed at improving the then Victorian ALP’s ‘green credentials’ before the November 2010 State election, the Premier and his Minister didn’t detail any job creation initiatives.

The Latrobe Valley Workforce has suffered greatly in recent decades and deserved the necessary assurances. They didn’t get them.

One day our politicians will get the message.