A LABOURED PATH

Further, it is notable that the majority of the strikes were nation-wide and in one or two cases have the potential to rear their heads again. To strike in protest at employment conditions, pay rates and other basics is, of course, a fundamental right given that the action is implemented according to the ‘rules of engagement’. But with the powerful impact of COVID-19 during 2020 and the increased importance of maintaining efficient supply chains the scale of the action taken in certain quarters is surprising!

There have been several voices raised against the inappropriate nature of the timing of strikes – a prime example being Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia, who commenting on the Maritime Union of Australia’s (MUA) strike action in key ports in the second half of 2020 said: “We cannot have the militant end of the union movement effectively engaging in a campaign of extortion against the Australian people in the middle of a COVID-19 recession. This is just appalling behaviour.”

He puts forward a strong argument – the MUA ‘s starting point for negotiations with three major stevedores – DP World (DPW), Patricks and Hutchison – was to ask for a six per cent wage increase per annum over four years with associated objectives such as improved rostering arrangements, minimisation of the casual workforce and increased superannuation arrangements.

This was clearly a ‘juicy ask’ too rich for the employers’ respective budgets and as things stand now the MUA has reached an accommodation with DPW regarding Enterprise Agreements for its Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne terminals, and negotiations are ongoing with Hutchison and Patrick.

The Patrick negotiation also appears to signal that the MUA’s initial bargaining position was simply that ‘taking a position’ as part of a process designed to achieve a lesser result but nevertheless the one targeted. When in October 2020 Patrick applied to Australia’s industrial tribunal, the Fair Work Commission (FWC), for a ban on all industrial action, the MUA responded with what it dubbed as a ‘peace deal’.

Central to this was the proposition of a rollover of the existing agreement for two years with a 2.5 per cent wage increase per year and a commitment that there would be no industrial action for 12 months. Patrick countered this offer stating that if existing work conditions were to remain in place its annual wage increase offer would be 1.5 per cent.

ON BALANCE, FAIR?

So, is it fair to say that the MUA leveraged the situation concerning COVID-19 to assist in achieving its goals? On balance, this looks to be the case with diverse parties proffering this view and not least importers and exporters and trade representative bodies.

There is a recognition on the part of these entities that the MUA has a history of confrontation on the waterfront and is a union body permeated with militant elements who have no hesitation in leveraging more-or-less any situation to achieve its objectives.

This recognition, for example, is reflected in the concern that the Freight and Trade Alliance (FTA) and Australian Peak Shippers Association (APSA) have expressed about the possibility of further Protected Industrial Action. The FTA feels so strongly about this that it suggests the Federal Government should step-in and implement measures that will guarantee the reliability of the supply chain.

As a measure of comparison to the Australian industrial action situation, it is interesting to look at the mid-year strike that took place in the port of Montreal, Canada in 2020. As in Australia, the strike was essentially about workforce contract arrangements with rates of pay at the centre of this but also employee scheduling arrangements.

The strike period, comprising periodic and permanent strike arrangements, ran from late July into the second half of August. At this point port employers and dockers agreed to a seven-month truce, to run up until March 2021, during which time the general view is that a new agreement will be reached. This action was inherently shorter and sharper than the approach adopted in Australia. Arguably, it also had a much stronger justification for being launched in the first place in that dockers had been working without a contract since the end of 2018.

Equally, it steered away from making the action highly political in character – a feature of the Australian action was the claim that employers were seeking to increase the use of casual labour and generally undermine the position of permanent dockers on a number of fronts. In effect, it was yet another occasion when the MUA adopted an entrenched position, one that takes no account of fundamental technological changes or new market requirements.

The latter position is what some call ‘a dinosaur approach.’ An approach that is manifestly at odds with getting the best out of the new era of the so-called fourth industrial revolution. The bottom-line reality is, however, as Bill Clinton succinctly puts it: “The price of doing the same old thing is far higher than the price of change.