BY SAM WAINWRIGHT
Lost amid the Howard government's refugee bashing re-election hype was the news of its success in trying to crush another one of its targets, the union movement.
In November the long-running Federal Court case brought against the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) came to a conclusion. The MUA was fined $210,000 after being found guilty of breaching the "secondary boycott" provisions of section 45DB of the Trade Practices Act. In a worrying precedent, the union and one of its officials were also found guilty of "coercion" under section 60 of the act, the first time such a finding has been made against a union.
The ACCC initiated the proceedings following a dispute in August 1997 between the MUA and ship owners over the cleaning of ships' holds. Traditionally, ships that discharge cargoes in Australia have their holds cleaned by Australian labour while in port.
The majority of ships carrying international cargo fly "flags of convenience" (such as Panama or Liberia) where registration is cheap and there is no fear of any authority enforcing wage, safety or training conditions. Not surprisingly the ship owners prefer to have their cheap Third World crew clean the hold at sea. Environmental organisations oppose this because because it makes it impossible to regulate what toxic substances or introduced species may be flushed into the ocean.
The fine imposed on the MUA consisted of $150,000 plus $60,000 legal costs in what was a consent deal between the ACCC and the MUA. The union avoided heavier fines and protracted litigation by accepting that it had boycotted the vessels concerned, by MUA tugboat or linesboat crews refusing to allow a ship to leave port. The union and officials Rick Newlyn (then a national organiser) and Jim Boyle (Northern NSW branch secretary) were consequently found guilty of contravening section 45DB.
As usual, ACCC chairperson Professor Allan Fels wrapped up his union bashing with argumentation that tried to suggest that his real motivation was helping the average Australian consumer and not the Howard government's industrial relations agenda.
When Federal Court Justice Donald Hill made orders for the fines and costs on November 21 he also ruled that the actions of the MUA and Newlyn constituted harassment and coercion, in breach of section 60 of the act. "Coercion" and "harassment" in this context could mean anything by anybody that "restrains trade".
The court orders placed a permanent injunction on the MUA from taking action against ship owners that choose to have their holds cleaned by foreign crews. It required the union to publish in its journal a notice which read: "[A]n undertaking has been given by the MUA that prevents its officers, employees and members from taking action which would have the effect of substantially hindering the movement of a vessel for any reason related to cleaning of the hold of a vessel... Any breach of the orders or undertakings ... will be regarded as a very serious matter by the ACCC and the MUA and may lead to penalties being imposed on individuals as well as the MUA."
The MUA leaders (like those of most unions) placed a lot of hope in an ALP victory in the November 10 federal election. In particular, they were relying on a Labor government to repeal 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ 45D&E of the Trade Practices Act. The union placed a special levy of $100 ($40 for casuals) on all members. At the time the levy was motivated to members, it was estimated that the fines would be around $500,000. While some of the money raised by the levy was set aside to pay the expected fines, most of it was ploughed into Labor's election campaign.
The MUA donated $70,000 to the ALP (in addition to the union's regular affiliation fees). The MUA and the mining division of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) spent $300,000 on full page ads in the major newspapers highlighting the loss of Australian crewed ships. Marginal seats where it was thought Labor might get across the line were targeted for leafletting and local advertising.
The same racist hysteria about refugees that swamped news about Fels' attack on the MUA sunk the MUA hopes of relief from a Beazley-Crean ALP government. The MUA and all unionists now have to face up to the question of how we resist and repel the attack on workers and their unions that is surely brewing.
John Howard is on a roll. Not only did he romp back in, some of the Labor politicians are now blaming the unions for them losing the election (though they happily took our money!). Along with the Federal Court case against the MUA, there are also court proceedings against members and officials of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union in Victoria (the Skilled Six) and the royal commission into the building industry, a thinly veiled attempt to smash up the CFMEU. To cap it all off, Tony Abbott, Howard's industrial relations minister, is preparing a new wave of anti-union laws.
Wouldn't the MUA have been better off if it had fought the ACCC all the way — even if it meant that the court got a bit more and the ALP got a bit less? Isn't it better to make it clear to workers that we shouldn't accept these laws? Don't we have to make it clear to people that the only way we will really get rid of these laws is if enough of us stand up to them and make them unworkable? After all, there was a time when unions themselves were illegal. They didn't change that by asking nicely, but by militantly defending their existence.
Workers and their unions have never been able to rely on politicians in shining armour to ride in and save them from predatory employers and a biased legal system. Howard's assault will only be defeated if unionists stand together against it, and, at the right time and place, defy his laws. The bosses break the law all the time and get away with it because they have the strength and confidence to do so. Our challenge is to build a greater strength than their's.
[Sam Wainwright is a Socialist Alliance activist and member of the MUA.]
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, January 30, 2002.
Visit the