By James Vassilopoulos
Patrick Stevedores and the Howard government, unable to sack wharfies through thuggery — backed by balaclava-wearing security guards with vicious dogs — are now trying to win the dispute through corporations law and the administrators of the Patrick "labour hire" companies.
Following three court cases, two in the Federal Court and one in the High Court, and massive public support on the picket lines, the Maritime Union of Australia beat back Patrick Stevedores' attempts to sack all 2000 of its work force. But the fight is far from over.
It is possible that the so-called independent administrators who look after the four labour-hiring subsidiaries of Patrick may declare the companies liquidated, following a meeting of creditors on May 25. This would mean that all the wharfies would lose their jobs.
Peter Brook, one of the administrators from the firm Grant Thornton, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on May 18 as stating that the possibility of a deal was fading and that the labour-hire companies were heading for liquidation and the mass sacking of all the wharfies.
Stephen Long wrote in the Australian Financial Review on May 12, "This virtually assures that the companies will be placed in liquidation on May 25".
Three proposals
There are three proposals to be discussed at the creditors' meeting. One is from Patrick, one from the administrators and one from the MUA.
Chris Corrigan, the head of Patrick Stevedores, has put together a proposal in which 750 jobs would be lost, workers would accept a pay cut of up to 40% and there would be no job security: all wharfies would be out of a job, and only half would have a chance of being rehired.
Under this proposal, there would also be a likelihood of non-union labour winning contract work in cleaning and maintenance.
The MUA has condemned this proposal.
The administrators' proposal is equally dangerous for the wharfies. Their 38-page deed of arrangement would give the administrators total power in deciding what happens to the companies. The administrators could change "manning levels, work practices and management practices". The MUA would have to accept what they say.
This proposal would give the administrators an extra month to review the operations of the company by hiring "independent" consultants. The MUA would also have to give up suing Patrick and the Howard government in the Federal Court over claims of conspiracy and illegal acts.
Although numbers of job loss are not included in the deed of arrangement it is likely that in the end the consultants could recommend something like the Patrick proposal. Peter Brook, one of the co-administrators, said as much in the Sydney Morning Herald on May 19, acknowledging that his plan was "structured only slightly differently" from the Patrick proposal.
It is clear that the Patrick-hired administrators are not independent and are carrying out Corrigan and Reith's dirty work.
The Howard government has joined in by pressuring the administrators to make a quick decision on the future of the labour-hire companies by making $250 million to finance redundancies available only for another month.
The three key elements of the MUA's proposal to resolve the situation of the labour-hire companies are:
- to reverse the asset stripping and employ the wharfies in viable companies;
- to negotiate new industrial agreements which implement productivity and efficiency, as well as any agreed redundancies; and
- to resolve any outstanding issues through the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
There is still a huge gap between the MUA's proposal and the Patrick administrators' proposal, and a deal does not seem likely at the creditors' meeting. The gap is the difference between the 750 redundancies that Patrick wants and the 200 redundancies which MUA members may be willing to agree to.
Added to this is the massive pay cut and gutting of conditions, which the MUA will not agree to.
The scene is set for a showdown. The administrators have said that if there is no agreement over the three proposals, they would recommend liquidation of the companies.
Obviously this is the stick to batter the MUA into submission.
The MUA on May 19 asked the Federal Court to postpone the creditors meeting until conclusion of the court case dealing with the conspiracy accusation.
The MUA also want the Federal Court to reduce the voting strength of the bankers, so that the bankers and the administrators do not run the creditors' meeting.
Corporate scam
Why should the wharfies have to concede massive job losses and face liquidated labour-hire companies when they have had three court orders that all the workers should be reinstated?
If the administrators decided to force Patrick to put back into the labour-hire companies the $60-70 million of cash it took and the $315 million in assets it stripped, this would stop any chance of liquidation.
Before the asset stripping and the share buy-backs, three of the labour-hire companies made combined profits of $36,396,285.
Solidarity still needed
Whatever happens at the creditors' meeting and in the Federal Court, solidarity with the wharfies is still urgently required. First, financial help is needed because the wharfies are still not being paid even though they are working. A measure of the popular support for the wharfies is that over $1.7 million has been raised.
But more than this, industrial support and further demonstrations like the massive Victorian workers' stoppage on May 6 are still required. Popular pressure must be brought against Patrick and the government.
A just solution involves all the wharfies winning their jobs back on a permanent basis, with no loss in conditions. At every twist and turn of the dispute, the Patrick-government alliance has tried to sabotage a fair solution.
Meanwhile, in a major attack on the MUA's right to organise and its financial standing, it has been found in contempt of a Victorian Supreme Court injunction. The injunction had ordered the MUA to place an advertisement in three newspapers calling on its supporters to end the picketing outside of East Swanson and Webb Dock.
Justice Barry Beach on May 14 found that the MUA had breached this injunction, and he is now considering what penalty to impose; this could be thousands of dollars.
[Donations to the MUA can be sent to Level 2, 365-375 Sussex St, Sydney 2000.]