Reith clone continues war on workers

Anna Pha

Former Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith launched a 
massive offensive against trade unions and workers undermining 
trade union rights and workers' wages and conditions. His most 
recent replacement, Kevin Andrews is set to make even more far-
reaching changes in this Government's war on workers' rights. He 
is telling business groups that the government has "only just 
begun" to deregulate the Australian labour market.

Reith stripped awards back to "20 allowable matters"; imposed 
heavy restrictions on the right to strike; promoted non-union 
individual work contracts (Australian Workplace Agreements) and 
non-union enterprise agreements; strengthened the Trades 
Practices Act; introduced a range of savage penal provisions; and 
removed many other trade union rights.

Although Reith did weaken the compulsory nature of the 
conciliation and arbitration system and its centralisation, he 
did leave in place the basic legislative and structural framework 
which has provided trade unions with official recognition and 
certain rights over the past century.

The Australian Financial Review reports that the Howard 
Government plans to "completely remake workplace relations with a 
national system that bypasses the unions and state industrial 
commissions".

At present the Workplace Relations Act, which formally recognises 
a role for trade unions in labour-capital relations, relies on 
the dispute resolution powers in the Constitution to regulate 
industrial relations.

Over the years a system of centralised legally binding and 
enforceable (federal) awards has grown up, governing wages and 
working conditions to be provided by employers in specific 
industries or occupations in more than one State.

Alongside the federal system, state systems have also evolved. 
These have tended to be broader in coverage, picking up workers 
in particular trades or occupations who are not covered by the 
federal system.

The system is complex, and in itself there is nothing wrong with 
simplifying it, or having a single national one. The key question 
is what type of system is to be set down and what protection and 
rights does it offer workers and trade unions.

Andrews is seeking to legislate using its powers under another 
section of the Constitution relating to corporations — enabling 
the government to exclude trade unions from the equation.

The new legislation would cover most workers, the only workers 
left out would be employed in small unincorporated concerns, 
which could remain in the state system if one still existed. At 
present Victoria does not have a state system — it was 
dismantled by former Liberal Premier Kennett.

Unions shut out

The use of corporations law would completely transform the 
legislative basis of relations between workers and employers.

Under corporations law a mineworker would sign a contract with an 
employer — in just the same way as two companies would sign a 
contract for business. Trade unions would be shut out of the 
relationship as far as the law is concerned. At best a trade 
union might be able to assist — as could a lawyer — in a court 
of law or in signing the employment contract as an agent.

Such contracts would most likely be secret — "commercial in 
confidence" — just as there are provisions now protecting 
secrecy clauses in AWAs.

In practice, individual workers do not have the same powers as 
employers. That is why they form trade unions. It is their unity 
which gives them strength to stand up to bosses and fight for 
their rights.

Individual workers do not have the financial means to fight 
bosses in courts of law — this can cost hundreds of thousands of 
dollars. The likes of Rio Tinto can pursue cases to higher courts 
when they lose or even defy court decisions that go against them.

Any form of solidarity action taken by workers would be illegal 
under the Trades Practices Act if Andrews gets his way. 
Solidarity action could involve workers in one workplace 
supporting workers in another workplace on a different enterprise 
agreement. It could also be illegal for workers within the same 
workplace on individual contracts to take action to protect a 
victimised trade union activist or in defence of a worker sacked 
for refusing to use unsafe machinery.

Attempts to recruit members, mount pickets, or take action 
against an employer where it affects another corporation would be 
construed as "restricting trade" and subject to massive fines and 
damages payments. With the extensive use of contractors and 
subbies it would have virtually any industrial action deemed to 
be a secondary boycott (affecting another employer).

Combining (such as in a trade union) to fight for a wage rise or 
for uniform wages for a group of workers in a workplace would be 
treated as collusion and price fixing under an amended Trades 
Practices Act. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 
could be called in and heavy penalties applied.

The report of the Cole Commission into the Building and 
Construction Industry makes a number of recommendations for the 
application of such measures in the industry. It provides a model 
for Andrews to eventually apply to all areas of work.

As Andrews suggests, the Howard Government had "only just begun" 
its offensive to rid workplaces of trade unions.

The Democrats, under the right-wing, anti-union Andrew Murray 
have indicated their support for Andrews' plans.

The Labor Party has put forward a strategy based on the 
recognition of trade unions, a strengthening of the powers of the 
Workplace Relations Commission and abolition of AWAs. But, so far 
it has not agreed to abolish non-union enterprise agreements. 
Rather it is pursuing equity between workers covered by different 
types of contracts or agreements in a workplace.

The most important task facing trade unions is to defeat the 
Howard Government in the forthcoming elections and to see to it 
that as progressive and pro-worker government as possible is 
elected.