BY IAN JAMIESON
FREMANTLE — After nine months of national and local negotiations,
wharfies employed at P&O Ports are being forced by maritime union officials
to accept an enterprise bargaining agreement for the next two-and-a-half
years, despite considerable opposition in the union's ranks.
At the EBA's core is a provision for permanent employees and “permanent
irregular” employees to make up 51% of P&O's workforce, with the rest
to be made up of employees who are guaranteed the equivalent of two shifts
per week (GWEs) and casuals to top up labour requirements.
There is to be, for most wharfies, a 12% wage rise over the duration
of the EBA, a provision for maternal leave, recognition of union and delegates'
rights, a six monthly review of labour requirements and the retention of
regular panels for permanent employees in most ports.
There can be no doubt that P&O managers played hard ball during
the extensive negotiations. They sought an EBA providing for totally irregular
shifts for permanents (which would have resulted in less work for casuals),
a complete revision of the duration of shifts, reduction of existing conditions
on overtime, holidays, long service leave and sick days. P&O also argued
for outsourcing many aspects of stevedoring.
However, many MUA members have angrily rejected the response of their
officials to P&O's intransigence. Although three ports have yet to
vote on the EBA, significant opposition has developed, particularly in
major ports. At a vote at the Fisherman's Islands dock in Brisbane, 95%
voted against the draft EBA, as did 20% at Melbourne's West Swanson dock.
Anger has also been evident in Sydney and Fremantle, where dozens of
GWEs and casuals have met outside the framework of the MUA to express opposition.
A vote is yet to be taken in these ports, or in Adelaide.
Serious concerns have been raised by wharfies on a range of issues including
shift starting and finishing times, allocation of jobs (all casuals have
to be prepared to work any shift with less than 24 hours' notice in most
cases), four-hour shifts, outsourcing of certain jobs and a lack of a guaranteed
career path.
Although conditions vary from port to port, there are three basic threads
to the mounting opposition to the EBA nationally and the way the MUA officials
have advocated its acceptance.
The first is the claim the MUA has achieved its aim of turning casualisation
around. However, even by its own admission, figures show a significant
increase in casual jobs. At the beginning of the current EBA, the July-August
1999 Maritime Workers Journal stated there were 70% permanents,
20% GWEs and 10% casuals. Instituting a ratio of 51% to 49% can only mean
a step backward.
On top of this, the newly proposed category of “totally irregular permanents”,
who will be guaranteed the equivalent of 35 hours per week, has heightened
fears that this category will be the new permanents in the future, gradually
replacing permanents on regular panels.
Casualisation has long been the scourge of the waterfront. There is
little or no job security. Hours and shifts are irregular, and most wharfies
do not know if they are to be picked up the following day until late at
night.
These conditions create enormous pressure on families, financially and
socially, leading to family breakups. They also undermine the health and
well-being of casuals.
Casualisation also has the potential to pit worker against worker in
the never-ending scrabble for a job. It can potentially destroy strong
unionism, as individual workers seek redress by doing favours for the company.
Permanency has always been a goal of waterside workers but in the past
decade increasing numbers of casuals have been used on the wharves.
Secondly, the EBA process itself is coming under increasing fire. The
national EBA has already been taken to around 13 ports so far, with 10,
mainly regional, smaller ports voting in favour.
MUA officials are insisting the national count will be taken on a port
by port basis, not on the basis of vote by a majority of P&O employees.
The EBA, although divided into three parts reflecting national, regional
and specific port negotiations, can only be voted on as a package. Thus,
according to P&O management and MUA officials, the EBA is now set in
stone, irrespective of the views of hundreds of MUA members yet to vote.
Resentment has surfaced on voting procedures in Fremantle, where P&O
Bulk and General GWEs and casuals were denied a vote on their EBA, with
MUA officials claiming these workers were about to be transferred to the
Fremantle terminal. While this may occur, these MUA members will often
be called to work their original jobs — working under conditions they had
no say or vote on.
Cynics within the MUA have suggested getting isolated, smaller ports
and sections to vote first has ensured acceptance of the EBA, with MUA
officials circumventing opposition within the larger ports.
Thirdly, despite the length of the negotiations, MUA officials have
bent over backwards to prevent any industrial action, which is legally
protected during bargaining periods.
Despite P&O's hard-nosed attitude, there has been no real national
strategy of forcing the issue around casualisation, hours of work etc.
It has been left up to national and local negotiators to retrieve what
they could from the process.
[Ian Jamieson is an MUA member employed in Fremantle.]
From Green Left Weekly, February 12, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
