The "Legal" Termination
of Collective Agreements --
Australian Example
- Pierre Chénier -
Alcoa workers protest outside the Western Australia Parliament in
Perth, August 22, 2018.
The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) announced in
January an
appeal of the decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) granting
Alcoa's application for the termination of the collective
agreement of more than 1,500 workers.[1]
The workers are employed
at six Alcoa
facilities in the state of Western Australia: three alumina
refineries, two bauxite mines and a port. The workers waged a
52-day strike in 2018 to oppose Alcoa's demands for concessions
on job security and its threat to terminate the collective
agreement, which expired on March 31, 2017. The workers tried to
negotiate without success a renewed collective agreement, called
an enterprise bargaining agreement in Australia.
The global giant Alcoa applied for termination of
the
expired
agreement in December 2018. The FWC granted the termination, to
be effective in January. This means the Alcoa workers no longer
have a collective agreement and are working under the minimum
standards established under the Fair Work Act 2009 and
other
labour legislation or any minimum Alcoa may dictate. The
Australian
Labour Party government
of the day passed this retrogressive national labour
legislation.
According to the Alcoa workers, working under the
Fair
Work
Act rather than their collective agreement would result
in an effective cut of 50 per cent or more of their current wages
and huge losses of benefits and pensions.
Alcoa announced in January that it would maintain
current
rates of pay, leave and pension provisions of the collective
agreement for six months. This implies the complete power of
Alcoa to dictate terms of employment without the consent of
workers. This state-imposed power means that when a new
collective agreement comes to a vote during the year, the
oligarchs expect the workers to submit to whatever anti-worker
concessions they demand.
In the most blatant anti-worker way, the Fair
Work
Act
2009 and the state power of the FWC allows enterprises to
eliminate workers' collective agreements and their collective
defence organizations and force employees to work under minimal
work standards over which they have no control and have not given
their consent. The Act says:
"225 Application for termination of an enterprise
(collective) agreement after its nominal expiry date
"If an enterprise agreement has passed its
nominal
expiry
date, any of the following may apply to the FWC for the
termination of the agreement:
"(a) one or more of the employers covered by the
agreement;
"(b) an employee covered by the agreement;
"(c) an employee organisation covered by the
agreement."
The Act says it has an underlying purpose to
promote
"national economic prosperity" by assisting monopolies operating
in Australia to enhance their performance and success in the
competition of the global market. To achieve this "prosperity"
and success of the monopolies, workers must agree to
"flexibility" in the operation of the facilities and submit to
"cooperative and productive workplace relations" over which
workers have no input, say or control.
The Act emanates from the outlook that workers do
not
produce
the value, which the company and economy require for their
existence but are a debilitating cost. According to this outlook,
the value workers reproduce for their own existence must be
constrained so Alcoa can expropriate more profit for itself and
in doing so compete with other global companies. Driving down the
living and working conditions of the working class is equated
with increasing "national economic prosperity." Such is the
backward view of the global financial oligarchy.
Under the arbitrary power and anti-worker logic
of the
Act,
the Deputy President of the FWC Abbey Beaumont granted Alcoa's
application to deprive workers of their collective agreement
declaring, "The Agreement was outdated and imposed restrictions,
inefficiencies, and unnecessary and unreasonable costs on Alcoa's
operations. Accordingly, the terms of the Agreement did not
afford Alcoa the flexibility to adjust its operations quickly and
efficiently in order to maximise its ability to extract advantage
from prevailing economic and operational requirements, or to
respond to changes in market conditions as and when they
arise."
The FWC mandate accords with Alcoa's arguments
that
terminating the enterprise agreement would not harm the "public
interest" because the public interest is synonymous with the
private interests of the ruling elite. This is an indication of
how far the usurpation of public authority by global private
interests has gone.
The situation in Australia strikes a chord with
Quebec
ABI
workers who are facing similar demands of flexibility and
efficiency at the expense of their rights, working conditions and
organized collective strength, compounded by Alcoa/Rio Tinto's
total refusal to negotiate with them, all of which is taking
place with the approval of the Quebec government.
To give some examples, the FWC in its 366-page
judgement
ruled that the collective agreement had to be declared null and
void because it has provisions prescribing minimum levels of
personnel. The FWC says these provisions prevent Alcoa from
determining the level of staffing according to what it deems
convenient to its "particular operational requirements, or
changed operational requirements, as and when they arise."
According to the FWC's Deputy President,
"Maintaining
minimum
manning levels limits Alcoa's ability to contract with third
parties or labour hire providers to perform work when it is
operationally efficient and cost effective to do so. In late
2015, it was apparent that Alcoa remained under financial
pressure partly because of an approximate 40 per cent drop in the
alumina price."
The FWC inadvertently spills the beans that the
global
market
price for alumina had fallen 40 per cent and workers must pay
with a loss of rights. Instead of serious investigation as to
what is wrong with imperialist globalization, which causes these
recurring crises and requires a new direction, the working class
becomes the target of the fury of the financial oligarchy.
The complaint that the collective agreement
"limits
Alcoa's
ability to contract with third parties or labour hire providers
to perform work when it is operationally efficient and cost
effective" refers to "rates for labour hire personnel." This
clause restricts the subcontracting of unionized jobs, which is
also a major issue in the ABI dispute in Quebec.
Alcoa pleads globally that it must not be
deprived
wherever
it operates of the economic advantage of outsourcing the hiring
of workers to temp agencies and international human traffickers.
The Australian agreement prescribes what it can pay these
outsourced workers at 78 per cent to 100 per cent of the hourly
base pay for the relevant job grade of an Alcoa employee, as well
as maintaining the same shift arrangements. According to the FWC,
these safeguards for the entire working class imposed a penalty
on Alcoa "that was greater than market rates." The market being
the labour market, which the global oligarchs have now extended
worldwide with millions of oppressed people desperate to make a
living and becoming prey of human traffickers.
When the AWU pointed out that from Alcoa's own
calculations
it recorded net profits totalling around $2.2 billion globally
during the operation of the enterprise agreement, the FWC Deputy
President replied:
"Alcoa's current profitability does not weigh
against
the
termination of the Agreement; particularly where it has a
rational basis for pursuing the changes in respect of restraints
of the nature covered in this decision. This is an important
point. Detailed evidence shows that there have been practical and
operational impacts arising out of the operation of the
Agreement. These have included marked delays in making
operational changes or being able to act upon decisions, the
expenditure of management and member time, and disharmony within
the workplace."
So, in "liberal democratic Australia," as in
other
countries
around the world, the ruling oligarchs can negate legally binding
negotiated agreements in favour of their narrow private
interests. Company profits must become even greater profits at
the expense of the living and working conditions and rights of
the working class. Workers rights count for nothing in this
imperialist world and are sacrificed in the reckless adventures
and fierce competition of the global oligopolies and the
recurring economic crises and wars. The necessity for change is
staring workers in the face as a challenge they must accept to
build the new.
The Australian Workers' Union and its members who
work
for Alcoa are rightfully resisting the negation of their
collective
agreement and the right to discuss, decide and give their consent
or
not to their wages and working conditions. Their fight merges as
one
with the struggle of Alcoa workers all over the world and
deserves the
firm support of all. The fight of the Australian workers has
clearly
brought to light what governments are up to in the name of an
alleged
duty to guarantee "economic prosperity." While the pretence is to
serve
the society, it merely refers to the profits of the financial
oligarchy
and oligopolies. In Quebec also, the Legault government repeats
the
mantra that Quebec is "Open for Business" to justify new
arrangements
which destroy social programs, destroy unions and good faith
bargaining, destroy health and safety standards on job sites and
in
places of work and attack immigrants in favour of human
trafficking. It
must not pass!
Perth, August 22, 2018
Note
1. The Fair Work Commission is
Australia's labour relations tribunal.
This article was published in
Number 7 - February
28,
2019
Article Link:
The "Legal" Termination
of Collective Agreements --
Australian Example
- Pierre Chénier
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
