BY SUE BOLTON
You have to give federal workplace relations minister Tony Abbott full marks for trying he's having another crack at getting anti-union laws through parliament.
On June 26, Abbott introduced two new workplace relations bills into the House of Representatives. One was the Simplifying Agreement-making Bill 2002, which Abbott claims will reduce the technical requirements and cost of negotiating workplace agreements.
The piece of anti-union legislation was the Improved Remedies for Unprotected Action Bill 2002 which Abbott intends to use to ensure that unions and individual unionists are penalised for taking "illegitimate" industrial action.
Another bill, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002, which restricts the right to strike, was passed by the House of Representatives on June 26.
ACTU president Sharan Burrow released a statement on June 24 slamming Abbott's legislation. It would, she said, "effectively remove the freedom of employees to withdraw their labour in almost all conceivable circumstances".
The Genuine Bargaining Bill 2002 aims to stop pattern bargaining and curtail the use of industrial action during enterprise bargaining periods. Currently, during these periods unions can take "protected industrial action" without the threat of being sued by employers or fined by the courts.
If the Genuine Bargaining Bill 2002 is passed, protected industrial action will be restricted because the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) will be empowered to order "cooling off periods" (i.e., ban strikes, etc) during industrial disputes and make orders preventing the initiation of a new bargaining period. The bill doesn't propose any penalties to be used against employers who refuse to engage in genuine bargaining during a dispute.
Burrow told ABC radio on June 24 that if the Genuine Bargaining Bills passed it would mean that "whenever an employer refuses to bargain they can then have the rights to take industrial activity taken away from the union representative".
"Banning industrial action by employees", Burrow added, "but not employers, would remove any responsibility from employers to bargain in good faith and provide new powers for action against workers pursuing legitimate claims.
"The possibility of massive fines or even jail terms for individual employees would in effect abolish a basic legal right [to strike] developed in civilised societies over the last 300 years."
The amendments to the Workplace Relations Act "follow government pressure on employers to take a more confrontational role in industrial disputes", said Burrow.
Despite Abbott's protests that he is not stacking the legal decks in favour of employers, the explanatory notes which accompany the Genuine Bargaining Bill explain that its aim is to make it harder for workers to have access to protected industrial action and even when they do have that access and exercise their right to strike, if the employer is refusing to negotiate, the bill gives the AIRC the power to take that right away.
In an interview with ABC 7.30 Report program host Kerry O'Brien on June 26, Abbott said that the new anti-strike legislation was needed because "we still have significant pockets of ultra-militant unionism in certain very important industries, such as the motor industry and the construction industry".
The Howard government is upset that in these two industries, the Victorian branches of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) have used a form of pattern bargaining to achieve industry-wide outcomes that are far superior to most enterprise bargaining agreements achieved interstate.
In the interview, Abbott baited Labor MPs to support the legislation by claiming that "the ALP is on the side of the job-destroyers, the ultra-militant AMWU" and that "the Victorian government's law is whatever the CFMEU wants"!
When the Senate inquiry into the bills was tabled in parliament in May, both the Democrats and Labor indicated opposition to the bills. However, these parties are always capable of being pressured or persuaded by the government to support its legislation.
The Democrats indicated that their reason for opposing the Genuine Bargaining Bill was that the AMWU campaigns had not led to "Armageddon" and that industry bargaining and enterprise bargaining were not "mutually exclusive". They also pointed out that it wasn't necessary to restrict the right to strike when the number of industrial disputes in Australia had declined. Does this mean that the Democrats would support restrictions on the right to strike if the number of industrial disputes increased?
The government has also introduced into parliament the Secret Ballots for Protected Action Bill 2002, which seeks to force unions to undertake secret ballots of members before any decision to strike can be made. Secret ballots mean that workers decide whether or not to take strike action in isolation from other union members. This means that they are more subject to intimidation by their employers and by the corporate media to vote against strike action.
The process of conducting a secret ballot is lengthy, thus allowing employers to stockpile supplies in the likelihood of a strike, and secret ballots offer more opportunity for corruption. The most democratic process is to vote on proposals for strike action at a mass meeting where all the union members get to hear all points of view, and it is clear for all to see whether the majority of members support a strike or not.
Abbott also has two bills in parliament which are designed to severely curtail the ability of workers to make claims against employers for unfair dismissal. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 aims to exempt businesses with under 20 employees from unfair dismissal laws, and the Fair Termination Bill 2002 aims to prevent casual employees with less than 12 months employment from taking unfair dismissal action against middle or large business employers.
Given that more than three million workers are employed by small businesses, and given the increased casualisation of the work force, these two bills severely curtail workers' ability to seek redress under unfair dismissal legislation.
Another bill which aims to put restrictions on unions is the Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees Bill 2002. Federal legislation already outlaws attempts by unions to implement a closed shop where all employees of a company are members of the union. However, Abbott wants to change the law to stop what he regards as a backdoor method of increasing the number of union members.
Abbott attacked a Federal Court ruling on June 21 that bargaining fees were a legitimate workplace issue. Electrical Trades Union Victorian state secretary Dean Mighell responded to the Federal Court decision by saying that his union would go ahead with plans to charge bargaining fees to non-members. However, Mighell also said that "a union should only charge fees where it can demonstrate it has delivered in the workplace. It's important this shouldn't be used as a form of payroll deduction or union membership alternative."
While the federal government has been extremely provocative toward militant unions in recent months, there is one threat which it has backed away from implementing.
After the conclusion of the Hastings dispute, industry minister Ian Mcfarlane threatened on June 17 that the government would "seriously consider linking industry aid to industrial relations reform" to ensure the car industry's survival. After criticism from the Australian Industry Group chief executive Bob Herbert, Mcfarlane backtracked in parliament on June 24 when he said, "I have made no suggestion that car industry support will be cut as a result of industrial action".
In an extensive interview on the Seven Network's June 30 Sunday Sunrise program, Abbott announced that he had asked his department for legal advice on what scope he has for taking unions to court when they don't abide by AIRC rulings or when they take illegal industrial action.
Abbott informed viewers of the program that "the government does have more of a policing role in workplace relations than has previously been thought to be the case, and we are looking at what greater role we can play here".
He said that even if the government's current spate of anti-union and anti-worker bills are rejected by the Senate, he will seek to find ways to escalate attacks on the unions through existing laws.
"I'm not expecting legislation, I am looking at the possibilities that exist under current law", Abbott said, adding, "The law needs to be enforced and where, for whatever reason, one party can't enforce the law against another party which has broken the law, there ought to be a role for a policeman or for a public prosecutor."
From Green Left Weekly, July 10, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.