Part 9 - Things get uglier
Kids on the pickets
Undoubtedly, the most shocking
image of the entire Waterfront Dispute was the appearance of terrified children
on the picket lines. On the Tuesday
after the Easter Weekend a number of children were brought to Port Botany by
their parents. When police started
trying to remove these children, the children became very upset and started
screaming and crying. The media was
there to capture the children’s distress and the story featured heavily on
television news broadcasts over the next few days. Indeed, this footage became one of the defining
images of the whole dispute.
But what was the response of both
sides of the dispute to this upsetting event?
Both sides of the dispute immediately
tried to turn these terrible events to their own political and media advantage.
Peter Collins, the former NSW
Liberal opposition leader, immediately branded the use of children as a
“deliberate stunt by union organisers to use children to gain sympathy for
their cause”.[1] He
added:
…people certainly
don’t like seeing children used as human shields in an inflamed industrial
theatre, as they were on Tuesday. Using children in this fashion is abhorrent,
inexcusable and unacceptable by any standard.
Vic Slater, the Assistant National
Secretary of the MUA responded with one of the most ludicrous statements of the
whole dispute[2]:
Let’s hope that
the hypocrisy of politicians complaining about wharfies allegedly using
children on the hustings is not entirely lost on the public. No doubt our Federal MP’s kissing babies for
photo opportunities in the lead-up to the next election will become daily fare
in the media.
How Vic Slater could seriously
compare MP’s kissing babies to young children being forcibly removed from
violent picket lines in tears is beyond me.
Slater went on to claim that the
person who brought the children to the “peaceful assembly” was not a member of
the MUA. He added that the person had only brought his kids because he could
not organise suitable child care. He made the following promise[3]:
And it won’t
happen again. The Port Botany picket has set up it’s “mobile crèche” away from
the picket – like those already operating in Fremantle, Melbourne and Brisbane.
People donated toys and food for children.
I will quote the rest of Slater’s
article because it has always shocked me at its cynicism in trying to turn a
terrible event into a public relations win for the MUA[4]:
Wives and
children, however, do have the right to be with their families in times of
crisis. Their husbands and fathers have lost their jobs. Who will feed them?
Who will pay the mortgage so they are not booted out of their homes? Who will
pay the child-care fees, now they are out of a job?
The ACTU, other
unions and other MUA members are doing all they can, but the myth of
Australian’s “feeling comfortable and safe” under the Howard government is gone
forever. Union bashing is not a family value.
The media are well
aware of this. They have been phoning us each day asking to interview families
about their plight. And it is the media which had requested our members get
families behind officials during television broadcasts.
Workplace
Relations Minister Peter Reith claims “the picket line is no place for
children”. No doubt he believes women should stay in the kitchen and children
should be seen and not heard.
The truth is that
wives and children are even more affected by this dispute and the men who have
lost jobs. And they have a right to be there as a family and have their say.
What's more, this
is Easter. It is not only a time when families are traditionally together, it
is a time when schools and preschools are on holidays. Childcare is even more
difficult to arrange, especially given this government has cut $800 million
from the children's services budgets – putting centre–based care, family
day–care, pre–school, after–hours programs, occasional and respite care out of
the reach of the majority of Australians.
This dispute,
which Mr Reid has manufactured, affects all family members, not just MUA
members.
It may be
difficult for readers to grapple with the reality that these 2000 wharfies that
Patrick has effectively sacked are human beings with mothers and fathers and
wives and children of their own – not the faceless demons painted by the
government. They are people. What's more, they are people with a long tradition
of sticking together and working as a community.
And they are not
just fighting for their jobs, their fighting for their children's futures. It
is only natural that such a time their children want to be near them.
I think the debate between Collins and
Slater provides a stark illustration of the moral bankruptcy of both sides.
Neither side truly cared about those kids in the middle of the picket line, nor
about any of the other people who were injured and victimised during the dispute.
Every person involved in the dispute at the grass roots level were seen by the
MUA, ACTU, Patrick and the Howard Government as little more than props to be
moved around in front of the media to try to win over popular support.
International action
In mid April 1998, it became apparent
that the MUA’s efforts in gaining international support for its cause was starting
to be successful.
As reported in the media at the
time, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organisations
(AFL-CIO) asked its 17 million members to boycott Australian farm products.[5]
This was followed by an
announcement by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) that it
was calling on all union members to stop buying Australian beef and produce. The ILWU president, Brian McWilliams, was
reported as saying:
The ILWU sees this
attempt to break the Maritime Union of Australia
These announcements caused a great
deal of concern in Australia
However, these proposed boycotts of
farm produce did not seem to make a great deal of sense in the context of the
Australian dispute, as only a few ships had been loaded using non-union labour. The ILWU’s explanation for the boycott was:
The National
Farmers Federation is one of the main instigators of this attack on the MUA so
we will begin by targeting it.[7]
The ILWU also hinted that it was
proposing to black ban any ships which had been loaded or unloaded
by Patrick Stevedores. In this regard, McWilliams was quoted as saying:
It will be several
more days before any ships using Patrick’s scab docks can make it to our shores
and time is of the essence.[8]
After these threats were made,
Professor Fels weighed into the debate in a significant way. He announced that the ACCC, through its
lawyers, had sent a letter to the MUA the previous Friday, 17 April 1998,
warning them about their conduct in seeking to facilitate a global boycott.
In the letter, the ACCC demanded
that the MUA:
·
cease aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring
or conspiring with the ITF to facilitate a global boycott;
·
advise the IFT not to threaten or implement any
boycott of Australian shipping; and
·
refuse to provide the ITF or any other overseas
affiliates with information about any ships which had used non-union
stevedoring services in Australia
The ACCC also demanded that the MUA
maintain all relevant records relating to the matter, including emails and any
other computer records. The ACCC warned the MUA that if it did not preserve
these documents it could subsequently face contempt of court proceedings:
Destruction of
such material in anticipation of the obligation to produce documents in discovery
is contempt of court.[10]
The letter ended with the threat
that the ACCC reserved the right to commence legal proceeding against the MUA
without further notice.
The ACCC demanded a response by 10am on Monday, 20 April 1998 .
The MUA’s response was swift and
direct. Coombs was reported as saying in response to the ACCC letter:
Our lawyers
laughed (when they saw the ACCC’s letter), they thought it was a joke.[11]
Vic Slater was also quoted as
saying that it was “unlikely” that the MUA would respond by the ACCC’s deadline
as the ACCC was “well down on our list of priorities at the moment”.[12]
The MUA did provide some more sensible
reasons for their decision not to provide the undertaking. For example they subsequently
claimed to the ACCC that they did not need to ask the ITF to take action as the
ITF could see what was going on in Australia and could decide to take its own action unilaterally.
However, Fels had a response to
this claim:
The ITF
constitution requires it to take boycott action only when recommended by its
local affiliate and there is other evidence implicating the MUA in the
boycotts.[13]
Professor Fels concluded by saying
that:
The commission is
at the point where it would have little choice but to seriously consider legal
action against the MUA.[14]
However, the MUA had some
justification for feeling cocky about the ACCC’s legal threats. This was
because of the recent outcome in separate legal proceedings commenced by
Patrick in London against the ITF.
Shortly after the dispute started Corrigan commenced legal proceedings in London
seeking injunctions to prevent the ITF from facilitating a global boycott of ships
stevedored using Patrick non-union labour.
Corrigan had been successful in the first instance in obtaining an
interim injunction.
However, the British High Court had
later decided not to continue the injunction. In his judgement, Justice Thomas
said: [15]
This court
is being asked to use its injunctive powers on an interlocutory basis in
connection with an industrial and political dispute in a another sovereign
state by requiring the ITF in this jurisdiction and throughout the world not to
induce its affiliates to take industrial action that is accepted can be lawful
in other sovereign states. It may well be that such action in relation to this
political and industrial dispute in Australia might be entirely in accordance
with the law as well as the social and political views prevalent in that state,
though contrary to the law currently applicable in Australia and the policies
being pursued by the Government of Australia.
It is clear that the granting of the injunction would severely impair
the ability of the ITF to lend support to the MUA in a bitter and political
industrial dispute in Australia Cairns Dubai
"it is in the nature of industrial
action that it can be promoted effectively only so long as it is possible to
strike whilst the iron is hot; once postponed it is unlikely that the action
can be revived.
The ACCC had never contemplated
trying to take legal proceedings against the ITF in another country to prevent
it from inducing other unions to engage in boycotts in support of the MUA.
Rather, our focus had always been on trying to take legal proceedings against
the MUA in Australia for inducing the ITF and any foreign unions from engaging
in boycotts against Australian shipping.
MUA's response to the ACCC
The MUA’s lawyers had written to the ACCC to ask for more time to respond to the ACCC's legal threats. They had also foreshadowed that the MUA would be denying the allegations of facilitating the global boycott.[16] The ACCC agreed to extend the MUA’s deadline to provide the undertakings after these requests from the MUA’s lawyers.
While the MUA’s lawyers were
politely asking for more time to respond to the ACCC’s allegations, Coombs was
taking an entirely different approach. He went on ABC radio to make the
following colourful comments:
The man’s
(Professor Fels) got an ego bigger than Ayers Rock and harassing me with faxes
and threats, you know, if he’s got evidence of something, why doesn’t he do
something about it.
I don’t know how
they (ACCC) expect me to call off international boycotts. Whatever these
affiliates of the ITF do is their business.[17]
By the end of April 1998, the ACCC
had prepared a very strong case against both the MUA and a number of MUA and ITF
officials. The ACCC could have commenced legal proceedings at the end of April 1998. Indeed, the Waterfront Team and many of the
ACCC’s senior management wanted to commence legal proceedings at that time. However, everybody appreciated
that it was a very significant decision to commence legal proceedings against
the MUA.
Professor Fels and the
Commissioners decided to wait until the result in the MUA’s legal
proceedings against Patrick were known before making a call about whether to
commence our own legal proceedings. As
stated above, the MUA had won an injunction before Justice North of the Federal
Court requiring Patrick to reinstate its MUA workers. Corrigan had
immediately appealed North’s decision to the Full Federal Court and won a stay
of North’s reinstatement injunction pending a final decision from the Full
Federal Court.
On 23 April 1998, the Full Federal
Court dismissed Corrigan’s appeal against North’s order and reaffirmed the
order requiring Patrick to reinstate its MUA workers. As reported at the time, this was a “stunning
blow” for Corrigan and the Howard Government.[18] Corrigan immediately appealed to the High
Court of Australia and again sought a stay on the order to reinstate his
workers. Justice Hayne of the High Court granted Corrigan a stay of the
injunction pending a final hearing of his appeal by the High Court of Australia.
[1]
“Children in the front line”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April 1998 , p.17.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “US 19
April, 1998 , p. 1.
[6] “US
unions call boycott”, Sunday Herald Sun, 19 April 1998 , p. 6.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] “Fels
threatens Coombs over foreign action”, Australian, 20 April 1998 , p. 2.
[10] Ibid.
[11] “ACCC
weights in on docks war”, Financial Review, 20 April 1998 , p.4.
[12] “Fels
threatens Coombs over foreign action”, op. cit., p. 2.
[13] “ACCC
weights in on docks war”, op. cit., p. 4.
[14] “Fels
threatens Coombs over foreign action”, op. cit., p. 2.
[15] Patrick
Stevedores Operations Pty Ltd v International Transport Workers, 21 April 1998 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/patrick_uk.rtf
- NB: this appears to be an unfinished draft of the final judgement by Justice
Thomas. Strange that such a document should be publicly available.
[16] “Fels
holds back for another day”, Financial Review, 21 April 1998 , p. 4.
[17]
“Stevedore ‘deal’ under investigation”, Australian, 23 April 1998 , p. 4.
[18]
“Stunning blow to Government”, The Canberra 24 April 1998 .
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment