1998 Australian Waterfront Dispute

Introduction

"We are not compelled to hire anybody," stated the administrator of Patricks' Stevedores, Peter Brook. The 1998 Australian waterfront dispute involved one of Australia's most controversial industrial actions. Although it is clear that waterfront reform was needed, the way in which both Patricks' and the Australian government pursued the reform was distasteful, not only to the unions, but also to the public. The results, intentions, and processes of this mammoth dispute are discussed below.

Causes of the 1998 Australian Waterfront Dispute

The main reason behind the coup by the Australian government was the alarming inefficiency and dishonesty of a portion of the workers on the waterfronts of Australia. Although the container movement rate on Australia's waterfronts was not chronically low, it was significantly lower than the waterfronts of most developed countries.

The inefficiency of Australia's waterfronts was caused by the fact that the waterfront workers were paid by the hour, and were protected by the Maritime Union of Australia's stranglehold on the waterfront. This inefficiency was a large drain on the Australian economy and international trade. It resulted in higher costs to send goods to other countries and to receive goods from other countries. In particular, Australian farmers were affected by the increased costs, and they aided in the training of the non-union labour for the waterfronts.

What Happened During the 1998 Australian Waterfront Dispute

It is clear that waterfront reform was needed to solve the problem of inefficiency. Although previous attempts had been made to address this problem, due to the power of the Maritime Union of Australia, no lasting change had been brought about. It seemed clear that no change would be possible until the union's "closed shop" approach was broken.

To this end, the National Farmers Federation (NFF), began training non-union waterfront workers in preparation for the mass sacking of the union waterfront workers. Patricks' and the Australian government worked secretly together to make such a move possible, also enlisting the passive support of P&O, the other main stevedoring company in Australia. Documents leaked to the Maritime Union of Australia indicate that this was indeed the case.

This preparation culminated in the day when Patricks' dismissed 1,400 union labourers in waterfronts throughout Australia, replacing them with their own trained workers. Productivity and profits are reported to have gone up substantially after this move. The Maritime Union of Australia seemed to hang in shock for a short period of time, but then struck back with their full force.

Through a long and bitter legal battle the two sides fought, until the case was brought before the High Court of Australia. The final verdict was in favour of the unions, with only a few concessions to Patricks'. The opinion of the court was that although waterfront reform was needed, the Australian government was not permitted to break the law in order to carry it out.

Conclusion

Herein lies the main reason for Patricks' failure. Not only did they break the law, but they sacked workers for being unionists, rather than for being inefficient or dishonest. This worked against them in the union's public opinion campaign, as only the honest hardworking people were the subject of interviews. Had Patricks' only dismised those workers known to be dishonest and inefficient, they would have had a much stronger case against the Maritime Union of Australia.

Back to Home