ACCC signals a new assault on wharfies

Lisbeth Latham

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's sixth annual Container Stevedoring Monitoring Report, which was made public on November 15, claims that the cost reduction gains made by the stevedore bosses as a result of the 1998 waterfront dispute are being eroded by a lack of new investment at Australia's container ports.


According to the report, in the first year after the 1998 waterfront dispute labour costs totalled $88.71 per container lifted and they steadily declined to $66.34 in 2002-03. But the ACCC report says that in the year to June 30, labour costs jumped to $69.94 per container lifted — the highest level since 2001.

The report argues that the rising relative weight of labour costs is the result of Australia's national stevedoring industry reaching maximum capacity, and that this has led to rising labour costs through the need to use a higher proportion of casual labour and increasing overtime payments.

To counteract this, the ACCC is pushing for increased investment by the existing stevedore companies in infrastructure, and for examination of measures by the Howard government to aid the entry of a third national stevedoring company into the industry.

“Investment is now urgently needed to expand the capacity of the ports; either investment by existing stevedores Patrick and P&O or by the potential entry of a new third stevedore”, declared ACCC chairperson Graeme Samuels.

The ACCC's report has received a flurry of positive corporate media coverage. The focus of the coverage has been over the breakdown of profits between the stevedoring companies on the one hand and importers and exporters on the other. But the real target is the wages and conditions of wharfies, whose experience of speed-ups and increasing work intensity since 1998 has resulted in an increase in the volume of cargo moving through Australia's major ports of 10% per year over the last six years.

This increased productivity has meant that, although the amount charged for lifting a container has continued to decline, there has been an increase in the profit margin on each container lifted from $10.82 in 1998-99 to $22.82 in 2003-2004 (although the margin fell slightly in the last financial year). This has contributed to the 41.9% rise in Patrick Corporation's annual profits in the last financial year to $215.24 million.

Increased competition in the stevedoring industry would place greater pressure on waterfront companies to drive down workers' wages and speed-up operations in order to main their profitability.

Recognising the possible threat to its members' wage and conditions containing in the ACCC report's proposals, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), has joined the stevedoring companies in opposing the entry of a third company into the industry. MUA deputy secretary Jim Tannock told the November 16 Australian “we don't support a third operator because we don't see how it works”.

However, while a united response by Patrick, P&O and the MUA may stop the introduction of a third stevedore company, it is unlikely to stop an attempt by the stevedoring bosses to drive down workers' conditions. Chris Corrigan, Patrick CEO, is a signatory to an November 15 open letter calling on Prime Minister John Howard urging him to undertake dramatic changes to Australia's industrial relation system, including stripping back the unions rights to take strike action and to establish individual contracts as the primary means for regulating employment conditions.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #608

Read more...

Electrolux Decision must be fought

Lisbeth Latham

The September 2 High Court's Electrolux decision has signalled a serious assault on the right of workers to organize and strike.

In a six-to-one decision, the High Court ruled that bargaining-agent fees could not be included in an enterprise agreement as this “does not pertain to the employer-employee relationship” and is thus in violation of Section 170LI of the Workplace Relations Act (WRA).


Bargaining-agent fees are levies paid to the union by non-union members to recognise gains the union has won for all workers in the industry.

The immediate effect of the High Court's ruling is that industrial action undertaken against Electrolux by unions seeking enterprise agreements that included bargaining fees is now deemed not to have been “protected action”, leaving the unions and their members open to be sued for legal damages by Electrolux.

However, as bargaining agent fees had already been banned by the Coalition government's June 2002 amendments to the WRA, the significance of the decision broke the previous interpretation of the WRA by both the Federal Court and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).

The previous interpretation had been that enterprise agreements could contain some “non-pertaining” items as long as the whole agreement could be characterised as pertaining to the relationship between employer and employees. The September 2 ruling calls into question the inclusion of a wide range of provisions in enterprise agreements, including automatic deduction of union dues from workers' pay, entitlements of union delegates and trade union to training leave, encouragement/facilitation of union membership and the right of union officials to enter workplaces.

The court's decision means that industrial action taken to support a claim that includes non-pertaining issues cannot be considered protected action.

The decision has caused considerable confusion and uncertainty as it calls into doubt the certification of thousands of EAS, including those already certified by the AIRC. Adding to this confusion and uncertainty has been the threat by companies such as Wesfarmers in Western Australia to seek legal damages for past industrial action that they argue was not protected action in the light of the High Court's ruling.

The uncertainty over allowable clauses in enterprise agreements has been partially allayed with the first test case of the Electrolux decision in the AIRC, on the agreement between Victorian butter manufacturer K.L. Ballantyne and the National Union of Workers. On October 25, AIRC deputy president Iain Ross refused to certify the agreement, arguing that payroll deductions of union fees did not pertain to the employer-employee relationship.

However, Ross's ruling allows clauses relating to prohibitions on the use of Australian Workplace Agreements, trade union training leave, right of workplace entry for union officials and paid union meeting provisions, union picnic days, union access to time and wages records and limitations on the use of contractors and casuals to be included in agreements.

While the K.L Ballantyne decision signals that many agreements can now be certified, unions continue to face challenges. How to protect those clauses that are viewed as not-pertaining is still an issue.

The re-elected federal Coalition government's next wave of industrial relations legislation is likely to include measures reinforcing the High Court's Electrolux decision. Any union strategy that delays challenging attacks on workers' rights can only undermine the capacity of unions to fight back and increase the Coalition's confidence to attack workers.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #605

Read more...

ADI applies for right to discriminate

Lisbeth Latham
On August 31, Australian Defence Industries informed the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commission that it intends to apply for an exemption from the WA Equal Opportunity Act.

If upheld, the application would allow ADI to exclude from employment workers born in any of the 20 countries that appear on a US government blacklist. It would also require all employees to wear tags indicating their country of birth.

While the changes would meet the requirements of the recently introduced US International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and allow ADI to bid for lucrative US defence contracts, it is estimated that 40% of ADI's 220 employees in Western Australia would face dismissal or transfer.

The application for exemption is being opposed by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Equal Opportunity Commissioner Yvonne Henderson and UnionsWA. AMWU state secretary Jock Ferguson told Workers Online on September 3 that the proposal was a form of apartheid and was unacceptable.

According to the September 3 West Australian, ADI has already been granted an exemption by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in order to prevent ADI losing US contracts, and is expected to apply for exemptions in Queensland and New South Wales.

From Green Left Weekly #597.

Read more...

WA police break-up forest protest camp

Lisbeth Latham

On August 17, 40 police broke up the six-week-old Forest Rescuers' protest camp in the Ludlow Forest near Busselton in south-west Western Australia, evicting 70 protesters.

The move against the camp followed the granting of final approval to the Cable Sands' mineral sands mine in the Ludlow forest — the world's last remaining tall tuart forest, on August 16.

The WA Labor government, which faces losing the local seat of Bunbury in the coming state election without Green preferences, has been attempting to downplay the possible impact of the mine.

State development minister Clive Brown told the August 18 West Australian, that the Ludlow Forest " not a tuart forest, it is an old-growth forest, it is degraded plantation land".

However, the anti-mining campaign has never claimed that Ludlow is an old-growth forest, but that it is rare ecosystem — part of the last remnants of the tuart forests that were heavily logged into the 1970s.

In 2002, the National Trust listed the Ludlow Forest as an endangered place in response to Cable Sands' proposal to mine the area. The Environmental Protection Authority has authorised the logging of 1185 trees, stipulating that 70% of trees older than 100 years must be preserved, while only 50% of those trees between 80-100 years old must preserved.

However, Friends of the Tuart Forest have raised concerns about the future health of the remaining trees due to possible damage to root systems from Cable Sands' intention to mine to within four metres of mature trees.

The campaign to protect the forest continues. A new camp has been set up in the Ludlow Forest. To find out about getting involved in the campaign, upcoming protests or how to visit the camp, visit the Save the Tuarts website ().

From Green Left Weekly #596.

Read more...

WA teachers reject five-year contracts

Lisbeth Latham

On July 22, Australian Education Union WA school representatives condemned state education minister Allan Carpenter for planned unilateral changes to teachers' working conditions.

On July 8, two days prior to the end of second term, Carpenter announced that the WA Labor government intended to introduce five-year contracts for teachers and principals in public schools. From 2005, all teachers with metropolitan appointments will face being shifted to a new school at the end of their contract.

The changes will also allow administrative staff deemed by the education department to be underperforming to be demoted, and will give greater autonomy to principals in the hiring and firing of teachers.

Carpenter has argued that the changes will increase the ability of teachers with country appointments to transfer back to Perth, encouraging graduate teachers to move to country positions.

A July 22 AEU meeting resolution said that Carpenter's "actions constitute an unacceptable attack on the quality of teaching in government schools, on the certified agreement and on the teaching workforce".

According to the AEU, the changes will have little benefit for country teachers. Instead, they will result in increased uncertainty for both teachers and schools in the metropolitan area with regular upheavals through staffing changes — a problem already experienced in WA's country schools.

The AEU has threatened to launch a political and industrial campaign if the government persists with the proposed changes.

From Green Left Weekly #591.

Read more...

Don't add insult to injury!

Lisbeth Latham

On May 13, chanting, "What do we want? — Workers' comp!", more than 2500 workers marched on the Western Australian parliament. The rally was organised by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and the Electrical Trade Union (ETU) in response to new workers' compensation legislation introduced into parliament on May 5.

CFMEU state secretary Kevin Reynolds told the rally the amendments do not go far enough and will leave "WA having the worst workers comp system in Australia".


The new legislation will restrict injured workers' access to common law, as secondary impairments, including psychological ones, will no longer count for the threshold that allows such legal action. The rally demanded: no maximum in payments; reintroduction of journey cover; and no threshold for access to common law damages.

MUA branch secretary Chris Cain told the rally that the legislation "was nothing more than Liberal legislation".

Reynolds threatened ongoing action unless the government "becomes a more sympathetic government to the working class". He welcomed the support for the rally from the MUA, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU) and rank-and-file members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, but attacked union leaders, including UnionsWA secretary Stephanie Mayman, who were not supporting the rally or the campaign for a better workers' compensation system.

Rally speakers included the partners of killed construction workers, ETU organiser Peter Carter, workers' compensation lawyer and activist Paul O'Halloran, CFMEU assistant secretary Joe McDonald and Greens MLC Jim Scott, who promised that the Greens would try to amend the legislation in the interests of working people.

State industrial relations minister John Kobelke defended the legislation, telling the May 14 West Australian that it would "provide $130 million in extra benefits to injured workers". Socialist Alliance senate candidate and MUA activist Ian Jamieson told Green Left Weekly that the figure only looked at statutory benefits and was "a pittance" in comparion to the savings of insurance companies from tightening common law benefits.

Mayman told the West Australian, "attempts to overturn the reforms could leave us with the dreadful system we've got now and no-one wants that".

Jamison argued that this misses the point, because a real fight by the unions could force a backdown. At the moment, he said, the ALP was mostly held back by its "commitments to protecting insurance company profits, which already stand at $270 million a year".

From Green Left Weekly #582

Read more...

WA agricultural workers still seeking justice

Lisbeth Latham

A herbicide used in the highly toxic chemical mixture Agent Orange — widely used during the US war in Vietnam — was still being used in Australia as late as 1985.

A group of workers, employed by the Western Australian government's Agricultural Protection Board (APB), who sprayed the herbicide in the remote Kimberley region have battled for decades to get official recognition for a wide range of illnesses which they blame on exposure to chemicals.

Finally, in February this year, the WA government agreed to pay compensation to 17 workers employed by the APB in the Kimberley between 1975 and 1985.

According to July 2002 government-commissioned study — the Kimberley Chemical Use Review, the APB used the herbicide 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) in the Kimberley region between 1975 and 1985. The herbicide is known to contain the highly toxic dioxin TCDD.

A soil sample taken from the Derby APB store site in 1999 indicated that the herbicide may have had higher levels of TCDD contamination than the maximum legal level permitted. While it is unclear what the source of this contamination may have been, it is possible that Agent Orange was imported cheaply after the end of the US war in Vietnam. What is clear is that over an extended period of time, workers were spraying herbicides that were in unlabeled drums.

Adding to the danger of dioxin exposure was the lack of occupational, health and safety measures that would have limited possible exposure.

Of the Aboriginal workers employed by APB in the Kimberley region, 90% told the review they received no safety training. While this partly reflected a lack of legislative measures mandating what was adequate protection, there is considerable evidence that in other parts of WA workers wore protective gear.

The APB workers in the Kimberley were told by managers that water near where the herbicide was sprayed was safe to drink. "Safety" videos made by the APB showed the herbicide being sprayed by workers wearing shorts and T-shirts, despite the manufacturer's labels (from 1969) specifying that skin contact should be avoided.

The workers were given no clear direction on storage of the herbicides or on safe food preparation in their work camps.

Numerous anecdotes were provided to the review of workers who had their clothes saturated with 2,4,5-T in the course of their work, and these clothes being taken home and washed with other family garments.

The workers and their families' fears of the possible dangers of the herbicides increased when an APB worker died suddenly during a local football match. The worker was 33 years old and physically fit, but had had a high level of exposure to the 2,4,5-T.

Despite these concerns, there has been little provision of information to the local communities were the spraying was carried out or to workers over the past 20 years.

Dr Andrew Harper, the report's author, found that among the 90 former APB employees interviewed, at least 13 probably had illnesses resulting from exposure to the herbicides. His report made 16 recommendations, including that the agriculture minister acknowledge that former APB workers and their families had been exposed to an increased risk of ill health as a consequence of the APB's policies and practices.

Harper also recommended that consideration be given to compensating those workers who had been exposed to the herbicide and suffered disability as a consequence.

In response, the government convened a new "medical expert panel" to investigate whether Harper's conclusion about "an association between the herbicide and illness was scientifically accurate".

This new review published its report in February. It concluded that Harper's report had not established a causal relationship between the exposure to 2,4,5-T and the ill health that the APB workers have experienced. It also argued that the 17 cancers and 49 deaths that have occurred among the 321 workers employed by the APB in the Kimberley over the period studied were "non-significant" as a statistical test. The workers' cancer rate was 48% higher and their death rate 9% higher than Kimberley residents not exposed to herbicide.

This second report became the basis for the government's decision to compensate only those APB workers who have developed cancer.

The majority of the former APB workers, who have illnesses other than cancer, have been left to seek compensation through the tortuously slow workers' compensation system.

Interviewed on ABC Radio National's Background Briefing program on April 18, Harper described as "a cop-out" the second report's refusal to recognise that the non-cancer illnesses could have been produced by expose to 2,4,5-T. "I think it's socially unjust, and I think that it is an inappropriate use of science", Harper said.

From Green Left Weekly #580.

Read more...