In 1997 the Patrick Corporation embarked on a restructuring program that was to have serious repercussions for the many waterside workers who were employed by them and, indeed, leave a lasting effect on our industrial relations laws.
Since the 1980s Patrick Corporation had been looking for ways to improve profit and productivity. Their planned approach consisted of reducing overtime entitlements for permanent employees, creating redundancies and hiring more employees on a casual basis. The MUA (Maritime Union of Australia) was created and strengthened against this background by the amalgamation of the SUA (Seafarers Union of Australia) and the WWF (The Waterside Workers Federation) in 1993. The MUA continued to retain a strong union presence on the waterside, and it covered "waterside workers, seafarers, port workers, professional divers and office workers who were associated with Australian ports".
Patrick Corporation maintained that because of productivity issues they were unable to make a profit. This was later shown to be untrue. Patrick Corporation simply began restructuring their company as the Howard Government came to power in 1996. Equipment, contracts with shippers and exporters were taken out of stevedoring companies and placed in another company. Working capital was stripped and placed in another company - this included six months of workers' private health care contributions, superannuation contributions, accrued leave and all entitlements. The workers were left in a stevedoring company that had no assets and had over 200 million dollars in debt. This was later found to be illegal but at the time it made a good case for the government to work in conjunction with Patrick Corporation to "break the back" of the union and decrease their hold over the industry in general.
When John Howard came to power in 1996 his government made sweeping industrial reform their top priority. In 1997, the Howard government "substantially amended the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and renamed it the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The stated aim of this legislation was to foster individual choice in workplace bargaining by reducing the powers of external organisations, particularly trade unions, to intervene. In addition, the legislation reduced powers of the Industrial Relations Commission to arbitrate disputes". The Howard government were going after the might of the MUA, using this as a test case to knobble the union movement Australia wide, reduce collective bargaining power of workers and guarantee more favourable conditions for employers and corporations.
In 1997-1998, Chris Corrigan, Managing Director of Patrick Corporation, Workplace Relations Minister, Peter Reith and Prime Minister John Howard were working behind the scenes in secrecy to "achieve waterfront productivity" by reducing the power of one of Australia's most powerful unions. One of the most controversial measures involved the "aborted Dubai operation" where the training of non-unionised military personnel was implemented to take over from the waterside workers and seize control of Patrick Corporation terminals Australia wide. This operation had been well thought out and planned well in advance with tacit government approval.
I remember, as the wife of an MUA worker, what happened when Patrick Stevedores sacked over 1400 of its unionised workers - effectively locking them out of the waterfront and bringing in non-unionised "scab" labour, trained well in advance to take over the positions. Chris Corrigan had worked for years to realise this result and in conjunction with the Howard government, his plan had finally come to fruition. Corrigan later put it back on the union, saying "from my very first exposure, it was clear that this was an industry buried in the past, attempting to re-live a class struggle that was no longer relevant, sustained by myth and legend with no concept of modern workplace culture or productivity" and "the cost and inconvenience was borne by Australian exporters and consumers". As we now know, Patrick Stevedores was a completely profitable organisation before Corrigan "reorganised" the structure of this particular arm of the organisation to make it look unprofitable. Putting it back on the union and trying to draw support from the public in this context was misleading and not representative of what Patrick Corporation were really up to.
I remember when they brought in non-union labor to take the jobs of the workers and I remember being down on the picket lines fighting for the rights of the illegally sacked workers from the waterfront. I remember helping to supply people with food on the picket lines so that they could continue the fight. Many of them shell shocked and angry, with little money and no option but to continue to persevere against the Patrick Corporation who were backed by the government and other organisations that people should never forget about - particularly the National Farmer's Federation, who were involved in the earlier hiring and training of non-unionised personnel specifically for this task. They earned the name "Not For Farmers" at the time and this is how I will always remember them.
We should also remember the words of John Howard in his memoirs .."The most bitterly fought domestic issue of my whole time as prime minister was the waterfront reform in 1998.. but it was worth the effort". This is how Howard remembers his treachery, the secrecy, the lies and the illegal termination of over 1400 unionised workers. It "was worth the effort" for him because it would forever change the landscape for workers in this country, reduce the impact of unions and reduce the power of the individual worker to bargain for fairer conditions in the workplace. Howard's legacy is what we see today, extreme casualisation of the workforce, underemployment, reduced rights, reduced capacity of unions to negotiate and exploitation of workers by employers who are emboldened by the diminishing collective power in the workplace.
While the MUA had to work within the new parameters of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 during the dispute, Howard, Reith and Corrigan didn't get it all their own way. The ACTU, CFMEU and other unions were out in support of the MUA during the lock outs and formed substantial picket lines to intimidate and perhaps partially change the course of the court's decision. Under the Workplace Relations Act it was illegal to sack workers because they were in a union. Patrick Corporation sought to get around this law with an elaborate and secretive corporate restructure with tacit approval from the government. The MUA provided evidence that this restructuring was indeed not legal, as they had simply pulled their assets out and moved them "upstream" into other organisations.
In the end the MUA won in the federal court. Patrick Corporation with the support of the government appealed this decision and it then went to the full bench of the federal court which upheld the earlier decision. Patrick Corporation were found to have "deliberately restructured their corporate structure with the sole intent to dismiss their unionised workers".
Was this the perfect victory? No. In the end the Patrick Corporation and the MUA negotiated a new work agreement which nearly halved the permanent workforce through voluntary redundancies. Casualisation and contracting continued. The Howard government did not resort to open confrontation again. Instead, it pushed through reforms and anti-union legislation (WorkChoices), attacking awards and banning strike action. I believe the Howard government ultimately lost the election due to the severity of WorkChoices implementation, but the damage had been done.
Today we see a weakened workforce where individual contracts still hold sway over EBAs. The current Morrison government are still as intent as ever to smash unionism in the workplace and destroy the rights of workers in Australia, calling for union reform despite the fact that the unions play by the most draconian guidelines ever imposed. We have a casualised workforce who have already lost benefits and penalty rates under this government. We have record unemployment levels in a crisis that would be over 20%, when also considering the underemployed and the hidden unemployed.
A solution would be for the government to plan effectively for a stronger recovery of the workforce by injecting long-term relief through subsidies and support programs for workers, to support unemployed on a living wage and to create more opportunities for employment through government-funded TAFE programs. This, in turn, would increase the viability of a stronger economy. Privatisation of training providers and employment agencies is not the answer, in fact it is drawing out vast quantities of usable funding into programs which do little to skill people effectively for the workforce or help them get back into the workforce. It is worth a private agency's while to have as many unemployed on their books as possible to draw out maximum funding from the government. In my mind, this is not an effective system of funding for the unemployed.
Under yet another conservative government with their compass pointed north to austerity an organised and effective solution for the workers in this country is never going to happen.
Comments