The industrial action underway on the Australian waterfront at the time of writing has echoes of the protracted action that took place in the 1990s, not least due to the intransigence of the MUA.
The “protected industrial action” implemented by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) in the country’s key ports – Brisbane, Freemantle, Sydney and Melbourne – has drawn strong criticism. The MUA’s decision to implement the industrial action due to a lack of progress in negotiating new enterprise agreements with port employers is seen by many as a callous action at a time when the country is battling the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Simon Birmingham, Trade Minister, speaking in early September, said the COVID-19 pandemic was already placing global supply chains under great pressure and further disruptions were the last thing exporters needed.
“Our exporters are already having to grapple with significant pressures as a result of the pandemic and now is the worst possible time for such actions that only compound these pressures.
“It’s hard enough for our farmers and businesses right now and the last thing they need is further uncertainty and delays in getting their product out of Australia,” he said.
Similarly, other government ministers banged the drum on the importance of complying with workforce laws and the responsibility of the various parties to positively engage and make agreements that deliver higher productivity.
Editorial in the leading Australian publication, the Financial Review, also captures the view of many on the MUA industrial action entailing a series of stoppages across the terminals of the container terminal operators; Hutchison, Patrick and DP World Australia. It highlights the particularly difficult situation in Port Botany and the consequential damage that will inevitably flow from the stoppages.
“Port Botany is Australia’s second-largest container port, serving the nation’s largest metropolitan population centre and biggest state economy. The escalating industrial conflict and extended delays on the Sydney waterfront will inflict significant damage and additional costs, uncertainty, and supply constraints on an already virus-hit economy and vulnerable businesses, by holding up the flow of imports, including critical supplies, and preventing exports from reaching overseas markets."
And it continues: “There’s no faux working-class solidarity here, as this action threatens the job prospects of the million or so Australians now officially out of work. It recalls the treasonous behaviour of the 1940s when strikes, sabotage and go-slows by wharfies – at the command of Communistcontrolled unions – held up the loading of troop ships and undermined the nation’s war effort.”
Just for good measure it also adds: “Two decades on (from the major strikes on the Australian waterfront in the late 1990s), the maritime unionist dinosaurs of the labour movement have clearly learnt something, but also forgotten nothing. The MUA position is that 1,000 or so waterside workers should hold port operators, shipping companies and other businesses to ransom by exploiting their chokehold on a critical supply point in the economy.”
No punches pulled by the Financial Review for sure, and to be frank it does have a point!
One aspect of the industrial action seen as particularly unpalatable is the imposition of a port-wide ban across all three Sydney stevedoring companies to prevent them from subcontracting delayed vessels to each other. This did not even happen during the notorious waterfront strikes in the late 1990s.
ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT
On the face of things, the roots of the conflict between the port employers and MUA is the inability of both parties to negotiate new enterprise agreements. Behind this broad statement, however, are a lot of details.
In the case of Patrick, for instance, the MUA instead of sticking with the original plan to roll over the existing enterprise agreement with a 2.5 per cent pay rise is introducing a range of new issues into the negotiation. It reportedly wants to ban outsourcing and limit automation.
To be fair Patrick for its part wants to remove a large slab of prescriptive rules that dictate how things are done on the docks and which in its view impede efficient working. Bottom line, to a significant extent the current dispute is very reminiscent of the industrial action taken against Patrick in the late 1990s.
On the employer side there is a desire to advance, to utilise new technology, to introduce proven new work practices and on the side of the MUA just to maintain the status quo!
