Power: The Federal Government And The Union Movement Essay, Research Paper
When discoursing power and its deductions, one must take into history several cardinal things: who the advocates are, what places they hold, and what they have to derive from exerting power. By and large, it is obvious when power is employed, it is one group contending the other, and an result is achieved by the exercising of power, normally by the group in the strongest place. However, frequently, dealingss become deformed when institutionalized power is at drama, and likewise with? people power? groups. The present dealingss between the Federal Government and the brotherhood motion continues to be a battle for both parties. By presenting Industrial reforms, the authorities has made a two-pronged onslaught on workers and the brotherhood motion. The undermentioned essay purposes to show the different types of power these two groups hold, how they use it, and the likely results of such a battle. This will be established in portion by sketching the assorted reforms to Industrial Law which affect brotherhoods and utilizing two matching instance surveies to determine how reforms and a general political orientation clang have affected the map of brotherhoods and how, accordingly, brotherhoods use the power they do hold to counterbalance for this.
Since the 1980? s, the construction and function of Industrial dealingss has been in a province of metabolism. This has been due to a figure of alterations in the political orientation and logistics of the work force and cardinal displacements in institutional power. After 1975, and the terror and economic load of the Vietnam war had subsided, concern began to coerce both Coalition and Labour Governments to better the waning lucks of private endeavor by a combination of economic restructuring, revenue enhancement cuts and pay cuts, along with decreased disbursement on public assistance, instruction and wellness. The brotherhood motion had been the chief obstruction to accomplishing these ends and so had been singled out for particular attending by concern anteroom groups. The Fraser disposal tried and failed at both the economic and industrial undertakings set by concern and it was non until Bob Hawke was elected in 1983 and the Accord model put in topographic point that the concern docket of economic restructuring was put in gesture ( Workforce 1997, p5 ) .
The Accord lifted the portion of national income traveling to net incomes and enabled some Australian companies to go internationally feasible. As the corporate sector? s net incomes continued to lift, concern changed attack and actively supported Labor in the back-to-back elections of 1984, 1987 and 1990 ( Workforce 1997, p5 ) . However, Labor? s economic restructuring with the Accord did non transport the concern sector every bit far as expected, and in the pre election ballyhoo of 1996, it was courted by the Coalitions promises of extremist schemes to ease economic growing and better trades for large and little concern. However, the Coalition was hiding some of their more blatant programs for the on the job population, and veiled it under their expressed concerns on what they termed as a? trade brotherhood monopoly? ( Howard in Wood 1996, p5 ) .
Equally early as 1985 when John Howard was elected Broad leader, he declared? The biggest individual challenge over the following five to 10 old ages is to liberate up the labor market? it does affect a weaving dorsum of certain elements of trade brotherhood power. ? ( In Kelly 1998, p5 ) After a successful election in 1996, Howard, with the encouragement and aid of Workplace Relations Minister, Peter Reith was eventually able to put in gesture a series of alterations that would for good change the function of the brotherhood motion. A treatment paper issued in March 1996 propounded? a more direct relationship between employers and employees, with a much reduced function for 3rd party intercession and greater labor market flexibleness? ( Reith 1996, p29 ) By? 3rd party? Reith meant entirely, the brotherhood motion.
It is non restricted information that the Liberal/Coalition and the brotherhood motion have for good been at odds. They have opposing political orientations and possess different sorts of power to endorse up those political orientations. The Coalition? s primary purpose is to progress economic growing, largely by advancing large concern and to a lesser grade, little concern. Their belief is that by making economic wealth through these avenues, it will brace the state and promote independency. Therefore, their understandings must lie with employers. Alternatively, the brotherhood motion, is chiefly concerned with the rights and autonomies of the workers who sell their labor. Both parties have merely their involvement group in head, therefore the ground for such power dealingss between the two.
The reforms to the Industrial Relations Act ( which was renamed the Workplace Relations Act ) of 1996 proverb important add-ons, alterations and omissions to many subdivisions of the Act. The Coalition purported them to be in the involvement of? equity in the workplace? and? supplying a model for concerted workplace dealingss? ( Lee, Peetz 1998, p19 ) . However, it seems more than coincidental that after a life clip of abhorrence, the Coalition has been able to sabotage and weaken the brotherhood motion under the pretense of good workplace reforms. The major reforms to the Act pertain to 5 chief subdivisions, which trade with:
Powers of the Commission, Certified Agreements, Australian Workplace Agreements, Minimum Conditions and Registered Organisations.
The first reforms relate to the standing powers of the Industrial Relations Commission. In the Industrial Relations Act 1998 the general powers of the committee arose under Part VI of the Act, specifically ss 99-105 covering in turn with the presentment, happening, conciliation and arbitration of differences. Those powers were so to be exercised within the context of the statue as a whole? its object and many farther demands or restrictions ( Rimmer in Lee & A ; Sheldon 1997, p54 ) . However, in pattern these few simple clauses changed the function of the committee as we have antecedently known it. It has now been limited to 20? allowable affairs? which brotherhoods can convey to the committee. These include:
? Categorizations of employees and skill-based calling waies
? Ordinary clip hours of work and the times within which they are performed, rest interruptions, notice periods and fluctuations to working hours
? Ratess of wage by and large, rates of wage for junior, trainees or learners, and rates of wage for employees under the supported pay system
? Piece rates, runs and fillips
? Annual leave and leave burdens
? Long service leave
? Personal/carers leave, including ill leave, household leave, bereavement leave, compassionate leave, cultural leave and other like signifiers of leave
? Parental leave, including pregnancy and acceptance leave
? Public vacations
? Loads for working overtime/ insouciant or shift work
? Punishment rates
? Redundancy wage
? Notice of expiration
? Stand-down commissariats
? Dispute subsiding processs
? Jury service
? Type of employment
? Old-age pension
? Pay and conditions for outworkers ( WRA 1996, s89A ( 2 ) )
Simplifying affairs to look before the committee has surely affected brotherhoods. Their primary function has been restricted to guaranting conformity by employers with Awards and with a license to move on behalf of members merely every bit and when expressly requested and authorised by the members, and non otherwise. It is besides fascinating to detect that alterations to awards came shortly after Australian chamber of Commerce and Industry affiliates filed an application in the Commission to deprive back assorted awards to include merely? allowable award affairs? .
Second, and likely most significantly for workers, commissariats for Certified Agreements and Australian Workplace Agreements have been radically altered. Certified Agreements are non new ; proviso was made for them in s115 of the 1988 Act. However, the 1988 Act provided a cardinal function for brotherhoods in the dialogue of endeavor understandings where the 1996 Act does non. This add-on to the Act lays the foundation of the construct that employers and employees should take primary duty for the dialogue of the footings and conditions of employment in their peculiar workplace. Even where an employer seeks to negociate a Certified Agreement with a brotherhood, it may merely make so where the brotherhood has at least one member employed in the workplace, and who will be covered by that peculiar Certified Agreement. Where an employer seeks to take advantage of the right to negociate certified understandings straight with its employees, brotherhoods are merely entitled to stand for the industrial involvements of employees if they:
( a ) are members of the brotherhood and the brotherhood is entitled to stand for the employees? industrial involvements in relation to work that will be the topic of the understanding ; and
( B ) have requested the brotherhood to stand for the employees in meeting and conferring with the employer about the understanding
( Workplace Relations Act 1996, s 170LK ( 4 ) )
However, where the understanding is made straight with employees, the employer must advise employees that they may be represented by any brotherhood that is entitled to move in their industrial involvements in any meetings sing the Agreement. Discretion is left wholly up to the employee, the brotherhood has no influence in the affair.
While Certified understandings are made with certain divisions of the workplace, Australian Workplace Agreements ( AWA? s ) are made between employers and single employee? s. Furthermore whilst certified Agreements allow for brotherhood representation, and in fact some employers request this, AWA? s have no official function for brotherhoods, alternatively, the undertaking falls to the office of the Employment Advocate, whose primary function is to measure and O.K. AWA? s. Unions may set about the unofficial function of dickering agent, but unlike Certified Agreements, the employer is under no duty to do the employee toilet to the information that brotherhoods may be called in, in particular fortunes. In the instance of Certified Agreements, the brotherhood may do entries to the employer even if they merely have one member under the understanding, but unless it has been employed as a bargaining agent, the brotherhood is expressly prohibited from doing entries or being heard in relation to the? filing, blessing, fluctuation or expiration of an AWA. ( Workplace Relations Act 1996, S170 WHA )
The subdivision incorporating Minimum Conditions has besides been altered so as to except brotherhood intervention to a minor grade. Unions have retained the right to stand for members before the Commission and the Court in affairs affecting ailments originating signifier the expiration of employment, nevertheless, the Act has changed the differentiation between unjust and improper expiration. Unions have lost the right to do an application to the committee where the ailment merely arises from employee declaration of unjust, unfair or rough dismissal, they do, nevertheless, retain the right to stand for the employee if it arises from improper expiration. Before there was differentiation between the two types of dismissal, brotherhoods could take the employer either to tribunal or the committee for both differences.
Besides under Part VIB, which pertains to Certified Agreements, s170MN has been added. This concerns when protected industrial action may be undertaken. Protected industrial action instigated by employees or brotherhoods, is explicitly prohibited outside bargaining periods for Certified Agreements. In order for the industrial action to be? protected? brotherhoods must give written notice upon the termination of the old Certified Agreement or AWA and before bargaining Begins on the new understanding, that they intend action to take topographic point. Harmonizing to new subdivision 127, this action must be authorised, and can be terminated instantly if the Commission considers that a party ( brotherhoods or employers ) :
? is truly non seeking to hold
? fails to follow committee waies ; or
? is harming the community of the Australian economic system.
( Mourell in Lee, Sheldon 1997, p113 )
No longer do brotherhoods hold the right to outright keep back labor on behalf of workers ; the most formidable power they have held in the yesteryear.
In that same Part, that which deals with Dispute Prevention and Settlement Part VI, Section 127AA trades with new Rights of Entry. Commissariats in awards refering right of entry are now unenforceable. Unless a license has been requested by an single brotherhood functionary and has been granted by an Industrial Registrar, rights to come in premises have been revoked. If they do have the license is non movable to any other brotherhood functionary, stands for merely three old ages and may be revoked at any clip by the committee. Even with the license, brotherhood functionaries are required to give 24 hours notice of entry and must non come in unless they have at least one member on the site. They must besides inspect entirely during office hours and interact with members merely on repast interruptions ( Workplace Relations Act 1996, Part VI s127AA, s285G & A ; s285A ) . Therefore, surprise visits to unscrupulous employers, one of the? large guns? in the brotherhood armory have now been made illegal.
Possibly the most critical reforms impacting brotherhoods straight are the alterations to Separate IX-Registered Organisations and Part XA-Freedom of Association. These two reforms are besides outlined in ( degree Fahrenheit ) and ( g ) in the Objects of the Act:
( degree Fahrenheit ) guaranting freedom of association, including the rights of employees and employers to fall in an administration, or association of their pick, or non to fall in an administration or association ;
( g ) guaranting that employer and employee administrations registered under this Act are representative of and accountable to their members and are able to run efficaciously ( WRA 1996, Objects )
These two amendments have truly? hit brotherhoods where they live? ( Gibb 1999, p17 ) in respects to rank. Part IX, covering with Registered Organisations, encourages the enrollment of little endeavor Associations by diminishing the minimal size of brotherhoods from 100 to 50 ( ss189 ( 1 ) ( B ) & A ; ( 1 ) ( c ) ) and duplicating the bound of one-year income from $ 10,000 to $ 20,000 before an administration has to follow with certain accounting demands that larger brotherhoods do. As a effect this is advancing motion off from larger, more powerful, coalesced brotherhoods to the weaker associations with limited resources and money.
This reform becomes a double onslaught on Union rank when combined with the new Freedom of Association subdivision which has replaced the repealed construct of? handily belong? ( which basically means that there must merely be one brotherhood to which members can conveniently belong or which can efficaciously stand for them ) . Since employees have the pick to belong to a brotherhood, or chorus from taking rank, brotherhood representation has diminution from 31.1 % in 1996 to 24.7 % in 2001 ( Klikauer, T. 2001, hypertext transfer protocol: //list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/prir-l/2001/04/msg00034.html ) This subdivision efficaciously puts an terminal to brotherhood penchant or closed store understandings, whether formal or informal, punishable by punishments against the brotherhood or administration ( Workplace Relations Act 1996, s298Y ) . It besides establishes commissariats to forestall exploitation of brotherhood members by employers, now that being portion of a brotherhood is a unfavorable in footings of who to engage.
All major reforms to the Workplace Relations Act influence the mechanism of the brotherhood motion in some manner, nevertheless, the reforms outlined above communicate the largest consequence. The authorities may so be trying to reform the workplace so as to make a more just environment for both employers and employees, but are besides taking this chance to tag commissariats to repress any fastness that brotherhoods may hold on the work force. Since 1996, and the passing of the Act, Peter Reith, and his replacement, Tony Abbot have invariably tabled reforms ( frequently a rehash of antecedently rejected amendments ) to harm brotherhoods and brotherhood perceptual experience. In 1999, Reith tabled a? Second Wave? of reforms to go through before the senate, nevertheless, ? The measure failed to turn to issues the Democrats believed were more of import that assailing already depleted brotherhood power? ? ( Workforce 2000, p1 ) . Before his surrender, Reith had once more tabled reforms, many being officially rejected in the first and 2nd moving ridge.
The grade to which these reforms have affected brotherhoods is still being revealed. The full motion has found it demanding to persist with schemes for get the better ofing incongruousness in the WRA 1996, nevertheless, as an increasing figure of instances test the boundaries of the Act, brotherhoods begin to understand how these hurdlings are overcome, or at least, operated inside to the satisfaction of all parties. The authorities has used their influence to incite reforms that have reduced the power of brotherhoods, but now, brotherhoods are detecting that these reforms lend a certain power in themselves. In seeking to scale down the figure of brotherhoods, and weaken the 1s that are bing, the authorities has succeeded in making a kind of solidarity between brotherhoods that would ne’er earlier existed. This is clearly seen in the instance of the? waterfront difference? of 1998.
Two of the state? s largest and most powerful brotherhoods, the Maritime Workers Union and the CFMEU ( Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union ) were the focal point of governmental? brotherhood busting? after the election in 1996, due to
the fact that the industries concerned have a inordinately big brotherhood rank percentile ( CMFEU 2001, hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cfmeu.asn.au/ ) . The authorities saw these two brotherhoods as a menace to Industrial reforms, and formulated schemes to interrupt their clasp on the industries they represented. By the really force of their rank, the authorities knew that these brotherhoods were powerful plenty to contradict most efforts to close them down.
The authorities is by and large loath to utilize the full extent of its power against? people power? groups like brotherhoods. A democracy, by its really nature doesn? t countenance it. However, if they can utilize another beginning of power to pull strings dealingss, and in the meantime, clandestinely support that other beginning, it retains the fa? fruit drink of even laterality and prevents onslaught on the authorities straight. This is what happened in the instance of the MUA Waterfront difference in 1998. Early on in 1997, after the Workplace Relations Act had come into consequence, Peter Reith and conveyance curate, John Sharp initiated audience with Chris Corrigan from Patrick Stevedores. ? These meetings culminated in a entry endorsed by the Howard Cabinet in July which argued for an? militant? scheme and a full graduated table onslaught of the MUA including the dismissal of 100s of wharfies? ( Bramble, T. 1998, p10 ) In fact, the purpose of the authorities was to show to workers and militants that no 1 could dispute their attempts to reform the workplace, and nonsubjective to set concern foremost.
In December 1997 the Federal Government had conspired with Patrick to develop 30 former military staff in Dubai, in preparedness to take over the places of the despoiled waterfront workers. The MUA discovered this operation and conferred with the International Transport Workers Federation to barricade transportation in Dubai. This finally saw the Dubai authorities withdraw the working licenses of the replacing workers, and an terminal to that scheme ( ACTU 1998, p3 ) .
In January of 1998 Patrick bomber leased portion of its Webb Dock installations in Melbourne to Producers and Consumers Stevedores ( PCS ) and locked out its nonionized work force. February and March of that twelvemonth saw some limited industrial action in Sydney, Fremantle, Melbourne and Brisbane, but it was by and large unsuccessful in footings of Patrick? s coming to any understanding with the MUA. However, following late dark foraies on port installations around Australia by Patrick security guards, armed with attack Canis familiariss, Patrick sacked it? s full nonionized work force of 1,400 lasting staff and 300 portion clip workers and announced that it would outsource a scope of services by its ain hire companies to nine outside contractors including PCS ( Labour Council 1998 ) . Two yearss subsequently, Richard McGregor of The Australian commented at length on grounds why the authorities would perchance back up such inordinate steps:
? the authorities sees the dark clip coup d’etat and the industrial indignation that it sparked as the sort of short-run hurting that will convey it unambiguous additions, both politically and economically. There are legion different dockets here, including Peter Reith? s attempt to turn out his heart to powerful Liberals who believe his 1996 industrial dealingss reforms were excessively soft. But the battle here is basically ideological & # 8211 ; the Coalition? s finding non to go through up what it sees as an historic chance to interrupt the power of brotherhoods on the waterfront. The piers are the first mark. The building and coal industries will follow. Canberra and [ ? ] Patrick, together have a formidable array of legal options to restrict the industrial response from the brotherhoods, including the menace of punitory mulcts for sympathy work stoppages, alleged secondary boycotts. ( McGregor 1998, p6 )
First the Alliance implements IR reforms, and so goads one of the state? s most powerful brotherhoods into industrial action which will unimpeachably ensue in punitory steps and the menace of obliteration for the MUA. Not since the initial transition of the reforms in 1996, had the authorities seen triumph on the industrial forepart, and was eager to stop the ordeal with every bit small harm to their public image as possible. However, really important was the apprehension between the ranks of the brotherhood motion, that if the MUA fell, no brotherhood would be safe. Union solidarity, it seemed would be the lone thing to halt the difference, and in the long term, the Howard Governments efforts at de-unionising the work force.
? Peaceful protests? were held throughout early April by the despoiled work force and many protagonists, until April 21 when Federal tribunal Justice Tony North issued orders reinstating the nonionized Patrick work force. However, the orders were instantly appealed by Patrick and stayed by the tribunal ( Osiris 2001, hypertext transfer protocol: //www.osiris.gov.au/html/decisions/browse/.htm ) . Once once more, on 23 April, the Full Bench of the Federal Court found Justice North? s determination? free from appellable mistake? and the Patrick work force was reinstated. Patrick once more challenged the determination in the High tribunal. During the fusillade of judicial proceeding, protests were affecting progressively more of the state and universe transportation organic structures. Stevedores in South Africa and Japan banned Australian lading, bluish collar brotherhoods such as the CFMEU and The Transport Workers Union organised sympathy boycotts and pupils marched in protest ( ACTU 1998 ) . The MUA were virtually keeping the state to redeem.
Patrick? s challenge of the reinstatement orders was overturned on May 4, and 370 Personal computers workers were forced off the docks. Patrick had run out of assurance in footings of emancipating themselves of a nonionized work force, and dialogues began with the MUA. Two yearss subsequently, MUA members were reinstated to the docks, and certified understandings that reflected both parties wants, were aimed for. However, the concluding trade between Patrick and the MUA fell abruptly of what could hold been achieved ( The Defender 1998, p 7 ) . 50 % of occupations were non reinstated in the long term, many being outsourced to contractors, workers received major wage cuts and insouciant employment took the topographic point of many full clip occupations ( O? Neill, 1998 ) . These were grants that need non hold been made, were it non for the union-busting political orientation of the Coalition.
Many saw the waterfront difference as a triumph for workers, but really few saw it as a triumph for brotherhoods. Since the instatement of the WRA 1996, brotherhoods have had to work within a legal model that has ne’er earlier existed. Where the authorities? s triumph ballad was in the downpour of legal proceedings that the brotherhood had to prosecute in. No more is it a power of its people which sustains brotherhood control, it has to be the ability to recognize ambiguity in statute law. The MUA worked within the new system, and found it missing. Some grants were made by Patrick, but in footings of MUA additions, it can non be seen as a successful project. The authorities has basically achieved its purposes where it concerns altering the function of industrial dealingss, and it is none more obvious than the low militias of the MUA. Once a strongly hawkish brotherhood, it now considers a amalgamation with the Transport Workers Union of Australia ( Pryor 2001, privy information ) so that one time once more, it may return to what brotherhoods such as these know best, and that is the magnitude of people power.
For brotherhoods that rely on formidable reputes as a signifier of power, working within the system has been really hard. They are forced to spot new schemes, and rely on the counsel of legal experts. However, as the WRA Act is yet an unfinished work by the authorities, brotherhoods may happen that in some instances it is more fulfilling to? travel by the book? ( Pryor 2001 ) as is evidenced in the instance of Mayne Nickless and Transport Workers Union of Queensland.
Mayne Nickless, trading as Armaguard had in topographic point assorted criterion certified understandings, refering to the country of work in which employees were engaged. It was the belief of a bulk of employees of Mayne Nickless that the criterion of organisation in footings of rates of wage, allowances and occupational wellness and safety were substandard. Pursuant to the footings of the act sing understandings and the bargaining period which allows for protected action, TWU delegates on the Armaguard site enlisted the TWU as a bargaining agent ( Pryor 2000, p6 ) . Armaguard was long known in the brotherhood one-fourth to be inflexible in respects to understanding devising, and as such, every bit shortly as the bargaining period began and negotiations became unproductive, the Transport Workers Union provided notice that industrial action was to take topographic point:
By missive dated 11 July 2000 the Federal Secretary of the TWU gave presentment to Armaguard of an purpose to take industrial action? ( IRC 2000, 961/00 )
The TWU had antecedently been fined for unprotected action against a big conveyance company, and so was experienced in the new protocol of industrial action ( Pryor 2001 ) . The authorities had provided the model, and now brotherhoods like the TWU were utilizing it to their advantage. The lone manner for Armaguard to forestall industrial action, was to do it illegal, and for that they had to subject an application to stop the bargaining period including grounds for making so. On 14 July, Armaguard applied for expiration of the bargaining period pursuant to subdivision 170W ( 3 ) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 which provinces in the undermentioned footings:
( 3 ) A circumstance for the intents of subdivision ( 1 ) is that industrial action that is being taken to back up or progress claims in regard of the proposed understanding is endangering:
( a ) to jeopardize the life, the personal safety or wellness, or the public assistance of the population or of portion of it or
( B ) to do important harm to the Australian Economy or an of import portion of it. ( IRC 2000, 863/00 )
Since existent industrial action had non yet taken topographic point, and Armaguard was simply pre-empting it, the committee found no evidences to supply the expiration ( IRC 2000, 863/00 )
Union functionaries held stop work meetings on 17 and 18 July and on 24 July one time once more, Armaguard applied for the expiration of the bargaining period. However, since the action had already taken topographic point, and no more action would be taken until July 28, the committee found that it had no legal power in stoping the bargaining period after action had already taken topographic point, but alternatively listed the affair for farther hearing on 28 July.
Armaguard applied once more for the expiration on the twenty-four hours predetermined for stop work meetings, July 28, under the same jurisdictional demands as they had antecedently, that being loosely to jeopardize the population and damage the economic system. Once once more the committee denied the expiration of the bargaining period, stating:
Can it be said that the industrial action is endangering to jeopardize the life, personal safety or wellness, or public assistance of the population or portion of it. I think non [ ? ] in my position, holding respect to agreements which were made by the company in expectancy of the industrial action there have been no such effects since 8:00am which are the topic of grounds before me. ( IRC 2000, 962/00 )
In the drumhead determination, the commissioner noted his purpose to lucubrate on his grounds for non allowing the expiration. On 4 August his findings outlined that Armaguard was non summarily inconvenienced by the action ; the populace and economic system was in no manner damaged, and that the Transport Workers Union was in every manner within their legislative rights to take the action that they did. It must be noted excessively that a new understanding was signed to the satisfaction of both parties.
Unions have found, as in this instance, that working within the legislative model is the lone manner to win in the industrial dealingss climate today. It is in this manner that the authorities has truly triumphed over the brotherhood motion. The Coalition used its new found legislative power to acquire an border over the motion as they ne’er could earlier. The natural and sometimes, crude? people power? of yore is no longer plenty. The brotherhood motion has had their power drastically reduced by IR reforms, but are now happening ways to get the better of this and happen a certain control of state of affairss in making so. However, it is problematic how long it will go on this manner with the Coalition continuously postponing reforms ; it will merely be after federal election subsequently in the twelvemonth that we shall genuinely see if brotherhoods are safe for the minute. The Coalition has removed Industrial dealingss reforms from their election platform in the cognition that workers, and brotherhood members constitute a big portion of vote per centum.
Changes to societal environments such as the workplace, are dependent on the power of the groups making the changing. The authorities has later had the imbibed institutional power that it takes to alter statute law, but chooses non to utilize it for fright of losing the power they have now. Unions must prehend upon the powers that they still have to reconstruct assurance of workers and work harder for the members that still exist. It is an chance for brotherhoods to show that institutional power will ne’er crush the power of people.
ACCC Media Releases 1998, Waterfront Dispute, April 1998
ACTU 1998, The Economicss of the Waterfront difference? ACTU Media Office Article.
AFR 1998, Docks Fallout: no monetary value cuts, 1-2 August 1998, p 1,2.
Attorney General Department, Industrial Relations Act 1988, AGPS, Canberra.
Attorney General Department, Industrial Relations Act 1996, AGPS, Canberra.
Austlii 1998, Waterfront Dispute Decisions, hypertext transfer protocol: //www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/waterfront.html
Baragwanath, M. , Catanzariti, J. 1997, The Workplace Relations Act? A User Friendly Guide, Newsletter Information Services, Sydney.
BLEC ( erectile dysfunction ) 1997, Workplace Relations Legislation? Documents Delivered at a? twenty-four hours seminar in March 1997, BCEC, Melbourne.
Bramble, T 1998, War on the Waterfront, Defend our Unions Committee, Brisbane.
CFMEU 2001, What is the CFMEU, hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cfmeu.asn.au/
CPSU 2001, Overview of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cpsu.org/ir_legis/overview.htm
Gibb, B. 1999, Workplace Information Kit on Peter Reith? s Second Wave of Industrial Reform, unpublished.
The Guardian 1998, The Generals of the Rear, July 15 1998, p6-7.
The Industrial Relations Commission 2000, Decision rhenium: Mayne Nickless Limited t/a Armaguard and Transport Workers Union of Australia 14 July 2000 863/00, Osiris Decision Summaries.
The Industrial Relations Commission 2000, Decision rhenium: Mayne Nickless Limited t/a Armaguard and Transport Workers Union of Australia 24 July 2000 961/00, Osiris Decision Summaries.
The Industrial Relations Commission 2000, Decision rhenium: Mayne Nickless Limited t/a Armaguard and Transport Workers Union of Australia 28 July 2000 962/00, Osiris Decision Summaries.
The Industrial Relations Commission 2000, Decision rhenium: Mayne Nickless Limited t/a Armaguard and Transport Workers Union of Australia 4 August 2000 963/00, Osiris Decision Summaries.
Kelly, P. 1998, Devil is in the Details for PM, The Australian 9 April 1998, p5.
Klikauer, T. 2001, prir-l ICFTU: Union members in Australia, hypertext transfer protocol: //list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/prir-l/2001/04/msg00034.html
Labour Council 1998, Waterfront difference? Media Release, 16 April 1998.
Lee, M. & A ; Peetz, D. 1998, Trade Unions and the Workplace Relations Act in Labour & A ; Industry vol. 9, 5-22.
Lee, M. & A ; Sheldon, P. ( explosive detection systems. ) 1997, Workplace Relations- Workplace Law and Employment Relationss: Documents from the Conference held by the Centre for Research on Employment and Work, Butterworths, North Ryde.
Leele, p. , Mortimer, D. ( explosive detection systems. ) 1996, Workplace Reform and Enterprise Bargaining: Issues, Cases and Trends, Centre for Employment Relations, Sydney.
Saint lukes, S. 1974, Power: A Extremist View, Macmillan Press, London.
McGregor, R. 1998, Long and acrimonious battle to the decease will be a conflict of political orientations, in The Australian 9 April 1998, p6.
O? Neill, S. 1998, Current Issues Brief? Waterfront Dispute, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia.
Osiris 2001, Decisions, hypertext transfer protocol: //www.osiris.gov.au/html/decisions/browse/.htm
Perry, G. 2000, Armaguard jumped the gun, & # 8211 ; in The Transport Worker August Ed. P16
Pryor, D. ( Industrial officer for TWU Queensland ) 2000, Brief to Mayne Nickless on behalf of TWU members of Armaguard? sing footings of understanding, unpublished.
Pryor, D. 2001, Interview with Industrial Officer for the Transport Workers Union 26/4/01.
QCU 1999, Senate Inquiry into the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment Bill 1999? Submission by QCU.
Reith, P. 1996, Agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Democrats on the Workplace Relations Bill, Parliament of the commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
SERC 1996, Report on the Consideration of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Scott, R. 1980, Interest Groups and Public Policy, Macmillan Press, London.
Wood, A 1998, End of a Monopoly in The Australian April 9 1998, p1/5.
Work force: The Independent Weekly Newsletter on Industrial Relations, ( 3 ) 1997, ( 1 ) 2001.
Workplace Express: Independent News and Analysis for IR Practitioners, Aug 2000.