91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳

Tom Flanagan DARWIN — The actions of trade unions played a decisive role in the delay, and eventual success, of ERA's efforts to export a shipment of uranium from Fort Hill Wharf last week. The threat of union bans was one of the factors that led to the delay of the shipment until November 2. It was originally scheduled for September 7. Without the October 29 ban by the Transport Workers Union the shipment would probably have passed through quickly and without any major incident. The 24-hour delay gave community activists in ENuFF (Everyone for a Nuclear-Free Future) time to gear up for action. The subsequent refusal of the maritime union workers to load the ship on October 31 also provided a morale boosting, if temporary, victory for the anti-uranium movement. The decision by the tug-boat captains to impose their own 24-hour ban on the ship on October 31 further underlined the fact that the real power to create a nuclear-free world is in the hands of workers. Workers, through the strength of their collective action, can express popular community sentiment. They don't have to depend on utterly unreliable politicians to put the public's will into action. Community activist organisations can also play a vital role in raising public awareness and mobilising progressive community sentiment, but — as ERA's ability in proceed with the shipment once union bans were removed illustrates — the withdrawal of active support by unions leaves the movement much weaker. Several factors led to the ultimate withdrawal of union opposition to the uranium shipment after imposing limited bans. First are the provisions against secondary boycotts in Division 7 of the Industrial Relations Act (formerly Sections 45D and E). These provisions, introduced by the Coalition federal government in 1977 to prevent unions imposing bans on live sheep exports, allow for severe penalties against unions which take industrial action against anyone other than their employer. In 1993 the WA Greens, recognising the intention to prevent collective action being taken over important social and environmental issues, tried to exclude secondary boycott provisions from the Industrial Relations Act. The Liberals and the Nationals voted against the Greens' motion, as did the Labor Party. The Australian Democrats, despite their claim to be aligned with movements for environmental and social justice, also voted it down. This is not to say that if there were no provisions against secondary boycotts the union movement would be actively contesting all forms of injustice in society. Unions are simply a means through which groups of workers can take action to defend their interests. And the sometimes more narrowly defined interests of particular workers are not always the same as those of the general community. For instance, under present conditions, the job security interests of uranium miners conflict with the wider community's for a nuclear-free world. Clearly, any responsible action to close uranium mines would have to include alternative employment opportunities for uranium mine workers. The fact that a political approach that looks after the interests of all workers will be needed to make united trade union action against uranium mining possible was clearly illustrated in the Darwin anti-uranium shipment campaign. Currently, the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (ALHMWU), the main union covering uranium mine workers in the Northern Territory, is reluctant to take a public position against uranium mining for fear of being seen to be undermining its members' jobs. The ALHMWU has significant influence in the NT Trades and Labour Council which therefore also puts limits on what action the council will take. The weight of the ALHMWU within the TLC, and the union's fear of ERA using any of its anti-nuclear statements as a means to alienate uranium mine workers from the union in part explains the NTTLC's luke warm response to a call by TLC delegate and ENuFF member Tim Stewart for TLC endorsement of the community picket line against the uranium shipment. The TLC voted to "support" rather than "endorse" the picket line, and TLC secretary Mark Crossins went to great pains in media interviews to associate the TLC action with opposition to French nuclear testing rather than uranium mining. This was despite the fact that the shipment was bound for Canada. The wider context for the response of NT unions is the lack of leadership, in fact misleadership, on the issue from the ALP-dominated ACTU. This is not surprising given the ALP's pro-uranium policies. It seems that the further away unions get from the ACTU bureaucracy the stronger the potential for opposition to uranium becomes: the bans that hit the uranium shipment hardest were those initiated by workers on the job at Fort Hill Wharf.