Covering Letter
To,
Justice Iain Ross AO
President, Fair work Commissions
Australia
Sub: Research on the case
Ref:- 1998 Australian Waterfront dispute
Respected Sir/Ma’am,
As you have asked a report on one of the employment dispute case of the nation,, this is to state that the same is prepared and attached hereunder as Annexure A. The case chosen for this report is well known as “1998 Australian Waterfront dispute.” All the related aspects expected by you are covered under the said report and this is to hope that the presented report would fulfill the purpose. You are requested to review the report.
Your Sincerely.
The presented case is named as 1998 Australian Waterfront dispute because the same is related to waterfront industry of the country. In order to set a background of the case, this is to be stated that the case was a result of some reforms in the existing legislation in the sector of employment (Milner & Coyle, 2010). In the year 1997, the Howard government amended the Industrial Relations Act and renamed the same as the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Sites.thomsonreuters.com.au, 2009). The provisions of the new act reduced the power of external organizations such as the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and other trade unions to take a part in an employment dispute (Revolvy.com, 2018). The lead reason behind the dispute was a low productivity of Australian Waterfront. When the new act came into force, Patrick sought to increase the productivity by reducing overtime entitlements and by creating redundancies of it are existing permanent employees. The motive behind the introduction of the new act was to encourage the involvement of a non-union workforce against the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and for this reason; the concept of Australian Workplace Agreements got recognition.
The dispute has been unfolded when Patrick restructured it is business and locked out 1400 employees (Abc.net.au, 2018). The employees of Patrick were the members of MUA. In addition to the lockout, Patrick dismissed all of it is employees and sold all the business assets (Vandenberg, 2018). As all the employees of Patrick were the members of MUA, the union initiated a case against the corporation that went before the Federal court for the consideration (Aph.gov.au, 2018).
Behind every dispute, especially when it is an industrial dispute, some factors act as a force and contribute to the dispute. Similarly, in the subjective case too, some external factors were there, which are mentioned and discussed as below:-
- Expectations of International Trade from Waterfront:- Firstly, to say that the waterfront industry of the nation was not doing well and therefore there was a requirement to amend the presented working scenario. Australia was required to expand the exports. The demand for international trade and competition from America was one of the significant factors behind the action of Patrick.
- Evolvement of supportive legislations: – Another reason external factor was the development of Workplace Relations Act 1996. This act granted a power and encouraged the businesses to employ non-union employees in their organization. This act has been developed with an intention to reduce the role of a trade union in business matters. The act of Patrick Corporation was fully supported by Howard government. This was one of the forces behind this dispute.
- UAE/Dubai Operation:- One of the incidents that have happened in the same industry influenced the action of Patrick as an external business environment factors. The incident is related to an Australian stevedoring company named Fynwest Pty Ltd. This company was sought to recruit members of the Australian Defense Force (ADF) against the MUA. The company has also planned to provide training to the ADF members for the employment but then MUA has enlightened the case and referred the same to media. The hurdle created by MUA in this case also acted as a force behind the action taken by Patrick as the corporation had an idea about the expected interference on the part of MUA and therefore the company planned dismal via restructuring
Background of the case
In conclusion, this would not be wrongful to state that in addition to the internal forces, these external business factors also played their vital role behind Patrick’s action that further gave birth to the waterfront dispute. In addition to the working requirements, Patrick had the support of the legislation, which was already in the favor of abolishment of involvement of trade unions and was developing their focus towards the direct dealing between employer and employee.
In the subjective case, the interests of many stakeholders were involved and the same get affected in various manners. Different stakeholders played different roles in the development of the dispute as they all had their different goals and all of them are mentioned hereunder:-
- Employer: – Being the employer, interest of Patrick Corporation was involved as a stakeholder in the dispute (Lombard, 2014). This stakeholder initiated the dispute by taking the significant steps. According to the data collected by Productivity Commission in the year of 1997, it has been reviewed that Australia generally charged higher amount in comparison to international container stevedoring performance and provided low-quality performance (Pc.gov.au, 2018). Patrick Corporation wanted to increase the efficiency of it is workforce. The productivity of this industry was decreasing and was being a concern. The ultimate goal of the employer in this dispute was to hire the staff members of another agency as existing employees were a member of the MUA in order to increase productivity and profitability. In order to fulfill this goal, Patrick implemented a new business structure. As a result of restricting, the corporation has dismissed all the employees. The corporation has used the option of the lockout as an industrial tactic. Being the employer, the concern of the Patrick was all good. Running an organization with no productivity was not possible for the corporation.
- Employees: – Another important stakeholder of the case is employees that have been affected by the action of Patrick. These employees needed their employment to be continued with Patrick. Cause of restructuring done by Patrick functions of MUA workforce has divided into various companies. The stevedoring assets and business of employer companies have been transferred to other companies of the group. The employer companies have entered into labour agreements with the owner companies. Not all these transactions were in the knowledge of employees of the union. The management of Patrick dismissed all the employees and liquidated all of it is assets. Further, the company been technically insolvent and applied the lockout. Because of all these activities at the end of the employer, employees lost their jobs and further initiated an action before the federal court. The interest of the employees has affected badly by this dispute as they have faced economic loss for a period. The lead goal of the employees was to get back their employment as it consisted of their economic interest.
- Unions: – The MUA was a democratic, well organized and militant union which has been founded in 1992 (Mua.org.au, 2018). This union was a result of the amalgamation of the Australian Seamen’s Union and the former Waterside Workers Federation of Australia (Labourhistory.org.au, 2018). As earlier mentioned that employees were cardholder members of MUA, the interest of this union was also involved. Being a workforce union, it was the responsibility of MUA to protect the interest of the employees who were the members of the union. The interest of union was involved as the same was required to represent the workers. The lockout was not the only concern for the union, but the other issue was that the company wanted to carry out the business activities with non-union employees. This was a harsh decision that affected the interest of employees as well as the union. Employees were concerned about their individual interest, but the union was concerned about the interest of all the employees. The goal of the union was to provide the employees their employment again and for the same, they moved the case to courts.
- State/Federal Government: – The dispute was important for the government also as the same was a part and stakeholder of the dispute. The reason behind the same was new legislation developed by this government. In actual, the legislation was the lead reason behind the dispute. Before the election, the Howard Government has made the commitments to develop some industrial relations reform. The government developed the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Primeministers.Naa.Gov.Au, 2018). The act was made to reduce the interference of external powers such as unions and employer association. The act was also focused on the development of labour agreements, which has been used by Patrick. This would not be wrongful to state that actual force behind the action of Patrick was this new legislation. As the dispute affected the interest of 1400 employees, it was a huge concern for the federal government. It was related to the waterfronts industry and therefore was a significant topic. In the whole situation and dispute, the lead goal of the federal government was to provide justice to the employees. Whereas on the other side, the actions taken by Patrick was supported by the legislation developed by Howard government.
When the case went in the Federal Court, Justice North provided the decision in the favour of union (McNab, 2018). The employer made an appeal to the full bench of the Federal court. This bench upheld the earlier decision of Justice North. Afterward, the dispute went to the High Court of Australia via further appeal of the company. By the result of the decision of the case, a new work agreement has been developed between the employer and the union, i.e. Patrick and MUA (Toscano & Patty, 2018). Workers have adopted this agreement in June 1988. The agreement included many of the provisions such as productivity bonus, smaller work crews, near halving via voluntary redundancies, longer work hours, and so on. It was a mutual agreement, therefore many of the aspects of the same were in favour of the employer, and many others were in favour of the union. By the result of this agreement, the union was able to keep the representation powers in respect to maritime workers and on the other side; the employer was able to implement the new changes in the organization. In such a manner, the dispute has been resolved between the parties. Apart from this, all the employed staff (non-union members) had to leave their post and they further claimed unpaid wages.
Conclusion
To conclude this report and to check the effectiveness of the decision of this case, this is to mention that the same has been proven significant and all the involved stakeholder tries to grab positives out of the same. However, it was not a complete victory of the union, yet the same retained it is right to be an employee union at Patrick. The dispute of the case seems to be resolved effectively, as the decision was not partial and in the favour of a single party. Both the parties have faced some advantages and disadvantages. While union became able to restore the employment of half of the employees, Patrick also implemented it is working policies. In a conclusive manner, the overall performance and productivity of the waterfront also increased. In order to state the implication of this case, this is to mention that the decision granted by federal court clarified the manner in which Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WRA) safeguard the right of freedom of association of workers. The dispute has been developed the bond labour movement and community organization. The dispute made the employment relations in the nation better. After this dispute, the expectations of the organization came into light and in such a manner, employer, and employees started helping each other. Further, employees felt safe that even after interdiction of WRA their rights were safe by unions in the incidents of dismissal and redundancies and organizations had believed that in case of any issue, the court will understand their concern too. In such a manner, the dispute led out positive impacts on the development of employer-employee relationships in Australia.
References
Abc.net.au. 2018. <https://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories/2012/01/19/3412096.htm>. viewed 10 December 2018.
Aph.gov.au.2018.<https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/CIB9798/98cib1> viewed 10 December 2018.
Labourhistory.org.au. 2018. <https://www.labourhistory.org.au/hummer/vol-3-no-2/internationalism/> viewed 10 December 2018.
Lombard, E. 2014. 1998 Waterfront Dispute, 4 June 2014, <https://prezi.com/owojyfst_mae/1998-waterfront-dispute/> viewed 10 December 2018.
McNab, D. 2015. Waterfront: Graft, corruption and violence – Australia’s crime frontier from 1788 till now. Sydney, New South Wales : Hachette Australia.
Milner, L., & Coyle, R. 2010. Bastardising the waterfront dispute: production and critical reception of the Bastard Boys mini-series. Communication, Politics & Culture, 43: 143.
Mua.org.au. 2018. <https://www.mua.org.au/history> viewed 10 December 2018.
Pc.gov.au. 2018. < https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/waterfront>. viewed 10 December 2018.
Primeministers.Naa.Gov.Au.2018.<https://primeministers.naa.gov.au/timeline/results.aspx?type=pm&pm=John%20Howard> viewed 10 December 2018.
Revolvy.com. 2018. < https://www.revolvy.com/page/1998-Australian-waterfront-dispute> viewed 10 December 2018.
Sites.thomsonreuters.com.au. 2009. <https://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/workplace/2009/07/01/fair-work-act-now-set-to-start-on-1-july/> viewed 10 December 2018.
Toscano, N & Patty, A (2018) 20 years on: The costs and lessons of the waterfront dispute, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 April 2018 https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/20-years-on-the-costs-and-lessons-of-the-waterfront-dispute-20180406-p4z85e.html>. viewed 10 December 2018.
Vandenberg, A. 2018. Education Policy and the Australian Education Union: Resisting Social Neoliberalism and Audit Technologies. Austrlia: Springer.
Workplace Relations Act 1996
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
