Patrick Ivedores Waterfront Dispute Case Study
Business Assessment
HSC Course
Employment Relations – Patrick Stevedores waterfront dispute (1998)
In this report, an analysis of employment relations is looked at in regard to the Patrick Stevedores Dispute of 1998. This dispute was a massive class battle that took place between Patrick Stevedores and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). It was one of Australia’s biggest, ever industrial conflicts of the 1990’s challenging the industrial unions of the time by the standing Australian Government.
The points that will be covered throughout this summary and analysis report are: • The Causes of the dispute • The Lead Up to the dispute • The Parties Involved - Australian Government/ Patrick Stevedores - The Union (MUA) • The Outcomes • The Final Result/ Conclusion
The Causes …show more content…
Improvement of the Waterfront had been in concern by the Australian Stevedoring Corporation and Australian Government for some time.
In 1997, the Government decided on an attempt to demolish the MUA through the help of Chris Corrigan, the owner of one of Australia’s biggest Stevedoring companies – Patrick Stevedores, in order to introduce a new non-union workforce on the wharfs. It was hoped that these changes to the wharfs would also encourage other industrial bosses to break union control in other trades. The problem was that for the company to gain productivity and efficiency, they would need to cut on expenses, including wages, and reduce prices. Corrigan attempted this through making redundancies and hiring more contracted but casual employees. Similar changes were also proposed for workers wages and working conditions to even out Patrick’s. This was argued by employees and was one of the main causes for the
dispute.
In 1996, Howard brought in a legislation of anti unionism - the Workplace Relations Act, which simply put, made striking illegal for all Union supported employees and had the ability to fine Unions for ‘illegal industrial actions’.
This alone was another cause for the dispute.
The Lead Up
In the lead up to the out burst of the ‘wharfies’, it was clear that John Howard and his Industrial Relations officer, Peter Reith, believed that by introducing the non-union labour it would gain productivity in the form of cuts to wages and conditions on the wharf.
In an attempt to negotiate this, the MUA had already made cuts to workers wages and conditions by $200mil each year and 4000 jobs being lost[1], but this was not enough for the Government.
So in September 1997, Patrick Stevedores started bringing in workers from labour hire companies as well as in December, flying 30 of Australia’s defence force members to Dubai to be trained as scab wharfies. Patricks objective was to use these ADF (non-union) members on the docks though was forced to stop after the Dubai Government feared international industrial action.
The Actions of the Parties Involved
The Government/ Patrick Strategy
With their Dubai plan out of action, Stevedoring created a new company called P&C Stevedores, which was set up as a non-union company with scab labour employees with the intention to undercut union organised wharfs.
This new company received political and financial backing from the federal government including help to pay for the redundancy packages for the wharfies though on April 7th, 1998 war broke out at the docks.
Patrick then fired its entire unionized workforce including 1400 full-time and 300 part-time staff[2] after late night raids all around Australia on the docks completed by security guards with dogs.
The company proposed to use outsourced staff, which leaked and caused sacked workers to swiftly set up picket lines at every major Australian port such as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle.
The Union – Marine Union of Australia (MUA)
After the new Workplace Relations Act (1996), the Marine Union of Australia were afraid to take a mass strike in action against Patricks and the Government so instead they went through legal industrial actions. In doing this, they called on international solidarity by calling for a boycott of P&C Stevedores across the world.
An example of the lengths the Government was prepared to go to was when 140 riot police smashed up a protest camp in Western Australia during the middle of the night.1
Over the next couple of hours, 2000 Union supporters gathered at Fremantle with more picket lines being set up soon after at Melbourne which all became a turning point in the dispute. There were thousands of union members, students and supporters protesting around the Nation. On early April 19th, after a stand off with police that provoked the protestors, support came for the wharfies when 2000 construction workers joined them in their battle, encircling the police who were forced to retreat. This resulted in a vast moral and physical victory for the wharf workers and as Howard and Corrigan realised this, their decision started to shift.
The Outcomes
Legal victory came soon after for the MUA in May 1998, which forced 370 scab workers from the wharfs and the MUA members returning. A Day of Action was help in Victoria which saw 80 000 people march through Melbourne in support of the Marine Union of Australia.
Patricks soon backed down and started negotiations with MUA after realizing they had miscalculated their strength against the people and that reforms for the waterfront could not be continued without the cooperation of the Union.
During the May and June of 1998, negotiations were passed around, picket lines ended and as a result, P&C rid the company of most scab staff.
Finally in September, an agreement was drawn up between Patrick Stevedores and the MUA, though losing many jobs and massive levels of part-time jobs with it.
The Final Result/ Conclusion
In the final conclusion of this case studies report, it was evident that the plans made by the Howard Government in the attempt to create a non-union workforce to the wharfs and bring down the rest of the union action, was unachievable in the way they went about it.
The thousands of protestors and picketers at the various sites were, though not alone, able to make a big impact toward the Governments decisions.
The popular phrase during the protesting time was ‘MUA, Here To Stay’ which is still remembered by many of the workers today, having a different meaning depending on where you were sitting during this National matter. For many of the workers, it meant no boss would break through their union. For the union leaders, it meant change had to happen through negotiation but that they would not lose their seat at the table.
-----------------------
[1] http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1342
[2] http://www.mua.org.au/war/cloak.html
HSC Course
Employment Relations – Patrick Stevedores waterfront dispute (1998)
In this report, an analysis of employment relations is looked at in regard to the Patrick Stevedores Dispute of 1998. This dispute was a massive class battle that took place between Patrick Stevedores and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). It was one of Australia’s biggest, ever industrial conflicts of the 1990’s challenging the industrial unions of the time by the standing Australian Government.
The points that will be covered throughout this summary and analysis report are: • The Causes of the dispute • The Lead Up to the dispute • The Parties Involved - Australian Government/ Patrick Stevedores - The Union (MUA) • The Outcomes • The Final Result/ Conclusion
The Causes …show more content…
Improvement of the Waterfront had been in concern by the Australian Stevedoring Corporation and Australian Government for some time.
In 1997, the Government decided on an attempt to demolish the MUA through the help of Chris Corrigan, the owner of one of Australia’s biggest Stevedoring companies – Patrick Stevedores, in order to introduce a new non-union workforce on the wharfs. It was hoped that these changes to the wharfs would also encourage other industrial bosses to break union control in other trades. The problem was that for the company to gain productivity and efficiency, they would need to cut on expenses, including wages, and reduce prices. Corrigan attempted this through making redundancies and hiring more contracted but casual employees. Similar changes were also proposed for workers wages and working conditions to even out Patrick’s. This was argued by employees and was one of the main causes for the
dispute.
In 1996, Howard brought in a legislation of anti unionism - the Workplace Relations Act, which simply put, made striking illegal for all Union supported employees and had the ability to fine Unions for ‘illegal industrial actions’.
This alone was another cause for the dispute.
The Lead Up
In the lead up to the out burst of the ‘wharfies’, it was clear that John Howard and his Industrial Relations officer, Peter Reith, believed that by introducing the non-union labour it would gain productivity in the form of cuts to wages and conditions on the wharf.
In an attempt to negotiate this, the MUA had already made cuts to workers wages and conditions by $200mil each year and 4000 jobs being lost[1], but this was not enough for the Government.
So in September 1997, Patrick Stevedores started bringing in workers from labour hire companies as well as in December, flying 30 of Australia’s defence force members to Dubai to be trained as scab wharfies. Patricks objective was to use these ADF (non-union) members on the docks though was forced to stop after the Dubai Government feared international industrial action.
The Actions of the Parties Involved
The Government/ Patrick Strategy
With their Dubai plan out of action, Stevedoring created a new company called P&C Stevedores, which was set up as a non-union company with scab labour employees with the intention to undercut union organised wharfs.
This new company received political and financial backing from the federal government including help to pay for the redundancy packages for the wharfies though on April 7th, 1998 war broke out at the docks.
Patrick then fired its entire unionized workforce including 1400 full-time and 300 part-time staff[2] after late night raids all around Australia on the docks completed by security guards with dogs.
The company proposed to use outsourced staff, which leaked and caused sacked workers to swiftly set up picket lines at every major Australian port such as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle.
The Union – Marine Union of Australia (MUA)
After the new Workplace Relations Act (1996), the Marine Union of Australia were afraid to take a mass strike in action against Patricks and the Government so instead they went through legal industrial actions. In doing this, they called on international solidarity by calling for a boycott of P&C Stevedores across the world.
An example of the lengths the Government was prepared to go to was when 140 riot police smashed up a protest camp in Western Australia during the middle of the night.1
Over the next couple of hours, 2000 Union supporters gathered at Fremantle with more picket lines being set up soon after at Melbourne which all became a turning point in the dispute. There were thousands of union members, students and supporters protesting around the Nation. On early April 19th, after a stand off with police that provoked the protestors, support came for the wharfies when 2000 construction workers joined them in their battle, encircling the police who were forced to retreat. This resulted in a vast moral and physical victory for the wharf workers and as Howard and Corrigan realised this, their decision started to shift.
The Outcomes
Legal victory came soon after for the MUA in May 1998, which forced 370 scab workers from the wharfs and the MUA members returning. A Day of Action was help in Victoria which saw 80 000 people march through Melbourne in support of the Marine Union of Australia.
Patricks soon backed down and started negotiations with MUA after realizing they had miscalculated their strength against the people and that reforms for the waterfront could not be continued without the cooperation of the Union.
During the May and June of 1998, negotiations were passed around, picket lines ended and as a result, P&C rid the company of most scab staff.
Finally in September, an agreement was drawn up between Patrick Stevedores and the MUA, though losing many jobs and massive levels of part-time jobs with it.
The Final Result/ Conclusion
In the final conclusion of this case studies report, it was evident that the plans made by the Howard Government in the attempt to create a non-union workforce to the wharfs and bring down the rest of the union action, was unachievable in the way they went about it.
The thousands of protestors and picketers at the various sites were, though not alone, able to make a big impact toward the Governments decisions.
The popular phrase during the protesting time was ‘MUA, Here To Stay’ which is still remembered by many of the workers today, having a different meaning depending on where you were sitting during this National matter. For many of the workers, it meant no boss would break through their union. For the union leaders, it meant change had to happen through negotiation but that they would not lose their seat at the table.
-----------------------
[1] http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1342
[2] http://www.mua.org.au/war/cloak.html