 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
||
|
Issue No. 146 | 26 July 2002 |
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Issue No. 146 | 26 July 2002 |
|
||
|
||
**********
It's a bit cosy in the Tool Shed this week. So outstanding has been the performance of a couple of Ministers in the Queensland Government during that State's recent nurses dispute that we thought they might like to spend a bit of time together in the shed comparing notes on how best to bucket workers.
And bucket is just the word in this case. Because when Queensland's Health Minister, Wendy Edmond, tried to play a bit of wedge politics by tipping a bucket - a chunder bucket, in fact - on university educated nurses the contents ended up all over her and in turn the State Government.
As for the efforts of the Queensland Industrial Relations Minister, and former TUTA tutor, Gordon Nuttall - well we'll come back to them.
The nurses' dispute was already running away from the Government, after Edmond left the State for a Labor ministers' pow pow in Darwin on the same day that the largest strike by nurses in Queensland history got under way.
Not content with this faux pax Edmond caused further embarrassment to the government when she accused many university-educated nurses of being too uppity to "wipe the brow" or "hold the chunder bucket". With his Health Minister spewing all over a popular group of workers in this way Premier Peter Beattie was forced to mop up the mess through a very public apology to the nurses of Queensland. Thankfully, as he was putting the mop back in the cupboard, he locked Edmond in with it for the remainder of the dispute.
That brought the Minister for Industrial Relations into the spotlight for the remaining weeks of the dispute - and things went from bad to worse, with one hapless attempt after another to avoid arbitration in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
Firstly, the former TUTA tutor regularly tried to insinuate that the QNU leadership was not representative of its members and even proposed sending a wages and conditions offer to a secret ballot without finalising negotiations with the QNU negotiating team.
When it was brought to his attention that this was a tactic that not even Joh Bjielke Peterson would have tried and that Queensland nurses were set to overwhelmingly reject the government's offer, he backed down and rushed into the AIRC for conciliation.
He then seemed to have trouble understanding the different between conciliation and arbitration (those courses he ran at TUTA must have blockbusters) and when the QNU exercised its legal and industrial right to reject the AIRC recommendations arising from the conciliation he again started frothing at the mouth.
Finally, in the ultimate victory of political spin over reality, when the QNU finally exhausted the Government's attempts to avoid arbitration this week he jumped in front of the cameras and lambasted the QNU for having to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into arbitration. What do you say? After a week in the Tool Shed, perhaps he will get a grip.
A joint communique from the NSW Labor Council, TCFUA and NRL states the parties are working towards an agreement to guarantee “minimum labour standards” in the production of Rugby League replica jerseys, shorts and casual wear.
Labor Council deputy assistant secretary, Chris Christodoulou, reported "encouraging" progress in negotiations that unions hope will establish a template for other codes.
"Labor Council negotiated a breakthrough agreement with Olympic Games organisers and discussions with the NRL have been encouraging," he said.
"We want to move this concept across high-profile sport so that when fans buy licensed product they know it's a fair deal all the way down the line."
The parties have held a series of meetings since the TCFUA sought contact over ongoing concerns about labour standards, more than a month ago.
NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley said all the parties realised the value of a major sport in the campaign to protect clothing industry workers. He suggested an agreement could be struck "within a month".
"We are keen to try and establish an understanding with the union that endorses the aim of protecting workers, and sets agreed procedures between it and our licensees," Annesley said.
"There is a willingness from all parties to work together to achieve that result."
Annesley said, as part of ongoing discussions, the NRL had brought its licensees face to face with unions.
Labor Council and the TCFUA have been campaigning for years to have head contractors, or peak bodies, accept responsibilities for actions carried out in their names and from which they derive profits.
Sweat shops thrive when name manufacturers, retailers or national organisations wash their hands of arrangements further down the contractual chain.
TCFUA secretary Barry Tubner says the payback for an outfit like the NRL is concerted action against companies "pirating" their merchandise.
"Reputable companies doing the right thing should not be disadvantaged by people paying below award wages and copying their product," Tubner says.
He says his organisation will monitor licensees to make sure they comply with award and legislative requirements.
After ignoring union claims that the working visa system was being used to exploit foreign workers, Ruddock has now invited the NSW Labor Council to travel to Canberra and discuss the issue.
It follows a series of cases highlighting abuse of the system including the case of Rados (see WOL issue 138), Indian hotel workers (see WOL issue 86) and the Indian Temple Workers (see WOL issue 94).
Rados, a master Serbian iconographer, was discovered by the CFMEU living on a hut after being paid subsistence wages by his sponsor, St Nicolas Serbian Orthodox Church.
He's been a regular fixture outside the Cole Commission's Sydney offices, creating art while making the point that the Commission has been ignoring the use of illegal immigrants in the construction industry.
Unions claim that his experience is symptomatic of the widespread abuse of the visa system that is costing Australian workers jobs and leading to the exploitation of foreign workers.
Now Ruddock seems to be accepting the depth of the crisis, writing to the Labor Council outlining steps he's taking to crack down on sponsoring employers breaching their legal obligations.
Ruddock says he introduced a new monitoring system in November, 2001, requiring employers to report on their compliance with visa requirements, and instructing Department of Immigration officials to inspect 25 per cent of workplaces.
Pattern Australian Workplace Agreements have left the Virgin workers $4,000 worse off than they would be if paid under an industrial award.
Virgin Mobile members are bucking up over the treatment and took their case to this week's Labor Council meeting where delegate Paul Morris outlined the sorry saga.
The call centre had recently transferred from a private operator contracting to Virgin into the Virgin empire. The workers were not even aware they had the right to join a union and were simply told to sign a new AWA.
But after some workers joined the Australian Service Union they began researching their contract and found it deficient against the clerical award it is based on in 15 different areas, including provision for higher duties, shift work, a finishing times.
It also means staff can be forced to work up to nine days straight, alternate early and late shifts and multiple starting times in the one shift cycle.
Significantly the pay rates under the AWA leave call centre workers $4000 per annum worse off, the sales team are down $3000 per year while back office staff are down $900.
Morris says staff at Virgin Mobile have been harassed by management to sign the AWAs, including being called at home.
He says individual contracts are a failure in the call centre industry, where work systems and arrangements are inherently collective.
"You have to be suspicious of a company that prides itself on being a customer champion but doesn't champion its own people," Morris says.
"It's fine to have a pool table and a couple of funky lounges, but that doesn't make a decent workplace."
Australian Services Union state secretary Michael Want says the Employment Advocate should be condemned for approving the Virgin AWAs.
Twenty four hours after announcing the Australian flag would come down on the last Australian-registered ANL vessel, the company has re-directed the OOCL Australia to Taiwan and away from a confrontation with workers.
Thirty four seafarers work the OOCL Australia which was supposed to have landed the containers at Brisbane yesterday.
ANL denies it has hijacked the cargo but the MUA is in possession of a fax from its general manager, operations, dated July 23, which clearly states the vessel will "dock in Brisbane as it has around 400 boxes on board to discharge in Brisbane".
The company infuriated workers yesterday, when it reneged on a deal to disuss flagging out the last Australian-registered container ship, and putting its crew out of work.
Foreign consortiums have replaced Australian crews with flag of convenience labour on other container vessels, including the ANL Excellence, which ran aground off the Queensland coast last week, and the ANL Progress, centre of a dispute over unpaid wages and crew abuse in the New Zealand courts.
MUA national secretary Paddy Crumlin has told a regional ILO maritime summit that the Australian Government has abrogated all responsibility for the country's shipping industry.
Australia was one of few regional nations which declined to send an official representative to the conference which drew Government officials from Banglasdesh, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Phillipines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.
Crumlin told delegates the Australian Government had actively encouraged flag of convenience operations.
"There has been an increasing incidence of crew abuse in Australian waters and documented cases of serious failure to record the welfare land safety of crew," he said.
"When the International Transport Workers' Federation or maritime unions have sought to intervene on behalf of these crews, consistent with obligations under ILO conventions, they have been faced with Government support for legal action against them and in favour of the abusers."
ACTU assistant secretary Richard Marles called on unions to use this week's decision in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to spark a new wave of activism around working life issues.
While conceding the AIRC decision had not gone as far as the ACTU wanted, Marles says establishing a basic right to refuse unreasonable overtime is an historic breakthrough.
"Previously, employers had the right to force workers to perform reasonable overtime," Marles says. "This decision gives workers the right to say no."
He also welcomed the fact that the AIRC had accepted ACTU evidence on the scope of both paid and unpaid overtime, noting that in terms of long hours Australia ranked only second to South Korea amongst developed nations.
Marles accepted the decision was only a "a first step" with key components of the ACTU claim rejected. The AIRC refused to accept an ACTU claim for an extra, paid, two-day break after extreme working conditions, such as 60 hours over four weeks, 26 days over a four-week period or an average of 54 hours a week over eight weeks.
But he says there the decision does provide an industrial springboard for unions to organise around the issue. Marles has commenced a series of seminars to brief unions on how they can apply the decision to industrial agreements.
Building Workers Launch 36 Hour Claim
Meanwhile, the CFMEU is gearing up to fight to reduce working hours - foreshadowing a national campaign for a 36 hour week.
CFMEU Construction Division national secretary John Sutton says the outcome of this week's 'Reasonable Hours' case left workers with no option but to take on this issue on an industry by industry basis.
"Overtime is endemic in our industry and we will be coordinating action around the nation to allow our members to reclaim their lives," Sutton says.
"Building workers are currently confronted with a federal government that has not only set up a political witch-hunt against their union, but actively opposes measures to improve the balance in their working lives."
The national common minimum claim- for more than 4000 Enterprise Bargaining Agreements that end over the next few months - will include:
- Introduction of a 36 Hour Week from 1st July 2003.
- Wages - 15% over 3 years.
- Boost in Superannuation and Redundancy.
- Limits on the use of casuals.
- Bargaining Fees clauses.
- Duration of agreements until 30th September 2005.
"We put all building industry employers on notice that we will not be diverted from our goal," Sutton says. "We are naturally open to dialogue with the employers and would like to achieve these improvements without industrial stoppages or dislocation."
A new British Medical Journal (BMJ) report on smoke-free workplaces outlines the huge profit losses facing tobacco corporations from a ban on smoking in the workplace.
The report states that in 1992 the Phillip Morris Tobacco Company privately estimated that if all workplaces were smoke-free total consumption would drop about 10 per cent through a combination of quitting and cutting down.
However the California researchers, who wrote this report, estimate that smoke-free workplaces would reduce total cigarette consumption by 29%.
The LHMU Hospitality Union has welcomed today's report. " Our union is at the cutting edge of the fight to ban workplace smoking because our members know that smoky pubs, clubs and casinos risk workers' health," Tim Ferrari, LHMU Assistant National Secretary said.
Tim Ferrari represents hospitality workers, and their union, on the NSW Cabinet Office working group looking at planned legislation for smoking in licensed premises.
In the ACT Gil Anderson, the LHMU Secretary will be mov a motion at the ACT ALP Branch conference tomorrow urging the ACT Government to review legislation for smoking in licensed premises.
Other LHMU branches have mounted similar pressure on State and Territory Labor Governments.
" The authors of the report state that the tobacco industry fights hard against any laws to ban smoking in the workplace because they are aware that this would reduce cigarette consumption by nearly a third," Tim Ferrari said.
The BMJ report states that in the US alone if smoking was banned in the workplace the tobacco industry would lose $A 3.5 billion and if the same happened in Britain the industry would lose over $A 700 million.
The report's author, Professor Stanton Glantz, comments that:" this loss in revenue explains why the industry fights so hard against legislation to ensure that workplaces become smoke-free."
The BMJ report on workplace smoking was completed by Professor Stanton Glantz, Professor of Medicine, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Fransisco, USA.
The California researchers reviewed 26 studies on the effects of smoke-free workplaces in the USA, Australia, Canada and Germany.
You can read the British Medical Journal report here
A spate of deaths during construction of the Athens Olympics site has prompted the CFMEU and NSW Labor Council to give the Greek Government an ultimatum: work with Greek construction unions to avoid further casualties or endure public protests over the shoddy safety record.
Prompted by news of the fifth death since work began on the Athens site, a delegation from the NSW Labor Council and the CFMEU met with the Greek Consul General this week.
They called on the Consul to alert the Greek Government to their concern over the deaths and their desire for the Government to establish a more effective way of consulting with unions over outstanding occupational health and safety issues.
NSW Labor Council's Chris Christodoulou says that while he welcomes the fact that the Consulate is "talking with us" the Greek Government must treat unions with the same respect they were afforded during construction of the Sydney Olympics.
"Greek unions could be at the forefront of assisting their Government in construction Olympic facilities to the highest standard, while helping them to overcome its OHS issues, as they did here," he said.
An agreement negotiated by NSW Labor Council to facilitate consultation with Australian unions and the ongoing involvement of Australian unions during the Games' construction stage were widely credited as being the key to the Sydney Olympics good safety record.
While one worker died during construction of the Sydney site, the overall standard achieved in relation to workplace safety was best practice. All sites had effective delegates and safety representatives.
Meanwhile, Greece's largest labour union has condemned what it describes as the "indifference" to safety shown by contractors and their refusal to adequately consult with unions. This is an "unacceptable situation that costs human lives, especially at a project that concerns the Olympic Games," the union said in an announcement.
Workers representatives have repeatedly complained of poor conditions, including a lack of drinking water, toilets and a general lack of oversight by officials, according to a Safety Online report. It says some workers have complained they have no contracts, overtime pay or benefits. Aside from the deaths, there have also been seven Olympics workers critically injured.
CFMEU (Construction div) state sec Andrew Ferguson says that with construction of Olympic venues comes the responsibility to maintain best employment and safety practices.
"This is a serious issue concerning a life and death situation that could easily be avoided if adequate consultation were to occur between unions, contractors, and the Greek Government," he says.
"Unless genuine consultation takes place by mid-August we will take further action."
Miller told the NSW Labor Council that union audits of cranes on major construction sites had found faulty equipment including failed wind indicators.
"In the August winds the public must be protected against cranes dropping their loads," Miller says. "If they did the potential for a disaster would be great."
The CFMEU is calling for an urgent inquiry to investigate crane safety and is urging WorkCover to release the findings of a safety audit it conducted after the union raised concerns early in the year.
The union says it has been continually frustrated by a lack of cooperation on the issue from WorkCover, saying the organisation has failed to respond to repeated requests that it report back the findings of its crane safety audit.
The union says that unless WorkCover recovers from its "inertia on this issue" there is a real danger that further accidents will occur, which may result in injuries or death.
They say his plans for a national Workers Compensation Scheme will only result in the further erosion of workers' benefits and rights.
Abbott says he wants to introduce a national scheme to lower costs and complexity for businesses.
But the reason is not good enough for many Australians that have little faith the same concern will be shown to workers.
Australian Services Union secretary Michael Want says he is concerned Abbott will achieve his cost cutting goal by going for the lowest common denominator.
He says there are currently states in Australia where workers compensation standards are well below those of NSW and warns that it is "quite easy to imagine that any reform of Workers Compensation would result in a federal system using the lowest common denominator.
"As we all recall, we are still recovering from this Government's recent reform of the Workers Compensation Scheme in this state and any attempts to further reform Workers Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety causes us major concern and anxiety," he says.
NSW Labor Council safety watchdog Mary Yaager says that while unions argued with the NSW Government over Workers Compensation reforms they "still managed to retain some of the highest benefits for injured workers".
"Most other states do not even provide workers with a weekly income beyond two years," she says.
As for using a national scheme as a cost-cutting device, Yaager says Abbott only needs to look to the New Zealand experience to see his plan is doomed for failure.
"When New Zealand introduced its all encompassing accident scheme the paltry level of benefits delivered to workers was atrocious," she says.
"Yet despite delivering as little as $40 a week to some workers the scheme still managed to blow out by $8billion."
Members of the Trades Hall Association, made up of the original trade union affiliates who built the hall in 1888, formally sold their shares to the Labor Council.
The Labor Council plans to spend $15 million refurbishing the Trades Hall with part of the proceeds from last year's sale of radio station 2KY.
Plans are being finalised for the heritage refurbishment, due for completion in 2004.
Moait made the announcement at this week's Nurses Annual Conference, just a day after Premier Bob Carr promised he would not appeal the current Industrial Relations Commission ruling.
But the popular nurses leader will not be bowing out of the movement altogether, announcing she would stay on as president of the NSW Labor Council.
Explaining that she wanted to retire as general secretary while she was still enjoying the job, Moait said she was proud of the union's achievement in building membership from 42,500 to 48,000 over the course of her two terms.
Earlier in the week one of the state's most senior nurses Professor Reta Creegan gave evidence to the Commission about the appalling conditions many nurses have to endure while carrying out their thankless work.
She told the Commission that while the number of nurses seeking fulltime work was at an all-time low, while the pressure on those currently in the system was higher than ever.
Excessive shift lengths, work overload, abuse from patients, poor facilities and depleted resources are just a few of the constant realities NSW nurses face on the job each day.
The NSWNA hopes its demands for a 15% pay rise, qualification allowances and retention allowances for nurses will go some of the way in addressing the issue and will encourage more people to choose nursing as a career.
LHMU member Brook Shanahan had called his manager a scab, for working through a bitter and lengthy strike last year at the South African-owned, Barloworld Coatings, in Villawood, Sydney.
Brook was sacked, nearly 10 months ago, after the ' scab' incident - but he has won his job back with all his outstanding entitlements paid.
When Shanahan was dismissed - after a two month long strike at the plant ended in September - he had reportedly called his manager a "scab" and a "Polish stoup" - the Polish word for scab.
The Commission was told that his boss claimed he had formally warned Brook Shanahan that such behaviour was "inappropriate".
But Commissioner Helen Cargill of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) ruled that there was no valid reason for the dismissal because "in the eyes of the applicant the manager was a scab."
Scab in Context
Commissioner Cargill justified the use of the word 'scab' in the context of the then recent industrial dispute.
After the AIRC ordered in February that Brook Shanahan be reinstated, because his dismissal was unfair, the company, Barloworld, lodged an appeal.
A few days back a full bench of the AIRC dismissed this appeal.
Commissioner Cargill had said that the employer need to have specifically warned its workers that the use of the word 'scab' would lead to dismissal for the termination to have been fair.
Barloworld Coatings in its appeal said the Commissioner was wrong to find no valid reason for the dismissal.
The Full Bench rejected the company's appeal, accepting Commissioner Cargill's finding that the manager had been ' unreasonably sensitive in his feelings'.
Original Decision
In the original decision Commissioner Cargill said:
" The applicant was upset about the role played by some managers ...
during the dispute and was, perhaps unwisely, not backward in showing those
feelings both during the dispute and after the return to work.
" I agree that the applicant was being a smart alec and having a go ...
but that is not, of itself, reason for termination."
Commissioner Cargill said the use of the word "scab" was clearly an
insult and should not be encouraged.
"It needs to be borne in mind that the word was being used in the two
days immediately following the return to work after a lengthy and bitter
dispute.
"It also needs to be remembered that, in the eyes of the applicant, (the
manager) was a `scab'.
"In my view the applicant's conduct in the circumstances of this case was
not a valid reason for termination.
"It was a valid reason for counseling, warning and possibly even
suspension, but not for termination."
According to a report published by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the trade unionists were arrested at the offices of the Labour Inspectorate, where they had been invited for a meeting with management representatives following the resolution of a conflict with the employers of the sugar company.
They were then transferred by soldiers to the prison at Mbanza-Ngungu, charged with having written strike leaflets. Since the conflict was resolved through negotiations, the strike had in fact been avoided.
Despite all this, the trade unionists were transferred from the central prison of Mbanza-Ngungu to the one at Matadi, straight after having lodged an appeal against the decision by the High Court. On 6 June 2002 the judges at Matadi were impugned and now the trade unionists are awaiting the ruling by the Cour Suprême de Justice (Supreme Court) as to which court will deal with the case.
Sydney Refugee Rally in Solidarity with the Bakhtiari Family
Sunday 28 July 2002, 1.00 pm
Circular Quay, Sydney (Outside McDonalds)
March to John Howard's Office (Phillip Street). For more information Roberto on 0428 190 276.
**********
Sydney Debunking Myths about Asylum Seekers Public Forum
Tuesday, 30th July 2002, 6:30pm - 8:30pm
St Francis' Catholic Church, 463 Oxford Street, Paddington
Speakers Include:
Ken Ralph, Director, Aboriginal Support Unit, Australian Catholic University
David Bitel, President, Refugee Council of Australia
Senator Kerry Nettle, Australian Greens Senator for NSW
Organised by the Coalition for Justice for Refugees in association with Edmund Rice Centre for Justice and Community Education, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, Catholic Mission, SEARCH Foundation, Sydney Palm Sunday Committee, SHOW MERCY - Rights for Asylum Seekers, Just and Fair Asylum (JAFA), Franciscan Friars and Australians for Just Refugee Programs Inc (AfJRP).
For more information telephone 02 9764 1330.
**********
Wednesday Politics at Berkelouw (Sydney)
Organised by the Pluto Institute and the NSW Fabian Society.
Berkelouw Bookshop
70 Norton Street, Leichhardt
Wednesday, 7 August 2002
6.30 - 8.00 pm
Local Heroes: Australian Crusades from the Environmental Frontline
Seminar to launch the book that tells the story of ordinary people who become environmental heroes in taking on large corporations and governments to make their communities safer.
In the process of seeking justice, these citizens learned how to become passionate activists for disenfranchised communities and to articulate a vision for a cleaner planet.
The Ecopella Choir conducted by Miguel Heatwole will give a specail performance at the opening.
**********
Canberra "Is Afghanistan Safe" Forum
Thursday, 8 August 2002, 7.00 pm
City Labor Club, Chifley Room, Childers Street, Civic
Organised by the Canberra Refugee Action Committee. Speakers include:
Shakira Hussein Australian National University
A representative from the Hazara Association.
For more information contact 02 6288 0535 or visit http://www.refugeeaction.org
**********
Sydney Politics in the Pub
Reconciliation 2000 - Where is it at?
Friday, 9 August 2002, 6.00 pm
Gaelic Club, Devonshire Street, Surry Hills
Speakers include:
Larisso Behrendt, Professor, Law and Indigenous Studies, UTS
Rosemary Neill Author of "Whiteout: How Politics is Killing Black Australia"
**********
Melbourne 'Police, Power, and Accountability' Evening Forum Series
All forums are held at 5.30 pm in the Public Policy Lecture Theatre, 2nd. Floor,
234 Queensberry Street, Carlton (cnr. Leicester and Queensberry Streets).
Tuesday 6 August
Policing and the Liberal State
Professor Tony Coady, Head of the Melbourne Division of the Centre for
Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics
Accountability - an Ombudsman's Perspective
Dr Barry Perry, Victorian Police Ombudsman
Chair: The Honourable John Cain, Professorial Associate, Centre for Public Policy
Tuesday 13 August
Policing: Where To From Here?
Christine Nixon APM, Chief Commissioner of Police for Victoria
Chair: Jim Carlton AO, Professorial Associate, Centre for Public Policy
Tuesday 20 August
Future Directions in Policing/Police Unionism
The Honourable André Haermeyer MP, Victorian State Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrections
Senior Sergeant Paul Mullett, Secretary, Police Association of Victoria
Dr Steve James, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Head of Department of Criminology, University of Melbourne
Chair: Professor Arie Freiberg, Criminology Department, University of Melbourne
Tuesday 27 August
Policing, Policy, and Politics
Felicity Hampel QC, Liberty Victoria
Kim Wells MP, Victorian State Shadow Minister for Police and Emergency Services
Chair: Professor Mark Considine, Director, Centre for Public Policy
**********
Evatt Foundation Conference (Sydney)
Retirement Incomes - the Challenges Ahead
Wednesday, 14 August 2002, 9.00 am to 5.00 pm
NSW Parliament House Theatrette
Macquarie Street, Sydney
Speakers include:
Greg Combet, ACTU Secretary
Mavis Robertson, Conference of Major Superannuation Funds
Senator Helen Coonan, Liberal Senator for NSW
Senator Nick Sherry, ALP Senator for Tasmania
Diana Olsberg, University of NSW
Greg Brunner, APRA
Ian Silk, ARF
Prof. Boris Frankel, Swinburn University
Derek de Vrieze, Bendigo Bank
Cost: $100, which includes the Conference, lunch, morning and afternoon tea, and the conference papers.
RSVP Fay Gervasoni at the Evatt Foundation, email: evatt@unsw.edu.au, phone: 02 9385 2966.
I just read an article in another paper that says the Australian government will no longer give priority visa processing to foreign IT workers since there is a tech downturn in Australia.
With so many Australian tech workers unemployed, it makes no sense to import more. I am writing to applaud this decision by your government. Here in the United States there is a law to let US companies bring in close to 200,000 high tech workers per year.
There never was a shortage of tech workers in this country, and last year we lost more than half a million tech jobs. Yet companies are still importing workers!
They are using the law to bring in labor that will work for half what Americans were earning and will work without benefits that Americans have earned.
The line about "the best and the brightest" is a crock. A US government study showed that more than 40% of the resumes of these tech workers could not be verified and of those that they could check, a good many were outright fakes.
My husband and many of his co-workers (computer programmers) lost their jobs this year when their company replaced them with foreign visa holders. My husband was required to stay for six months to train his replacement or forfeit severance pay and other benefits. His company came right out and said they made this move to boost profits.
Now we have lost our health insurance and my husband is collecting unemployment pay. He has not been able to find a job, depite sending out many hundreds of resumes.
To the people in your government who still think it's a great idea to import workers to replace Australians, think about this: Workers without jobs do not pay taxes, they do not buy consumer goods and they do not invest money.
On the contrary, they become a burden to society when they have need of government services to survive.
Sincerely,
Linda Evans
I was shocked to read your article headed "Builder Blows Whistle on Kangaroo Court". I am not aligned with any particular political party - I simply visit this site as it contains some interesting stories.
This story was absolutely horrifying. That in Australia there could be thugs hired by the Government to go around and threaten people into bad mouthing a union (or anyone else for that matter) is horrifying.
It is not the Australia I hoped I lived in. It makes me sick.
All I have heard from this Royal Commission is things like building workers swear - so what! What a tremendous waste of money that could be better directed to the disabled. I hope your story makes alot of people think. I
hope it gets publicised more widely as it is truly something out of the Spanish Inquisition or the McCarthy Trials.
Roger Walton
I was made redundant after 15 years of service. It's a common story, and it's always a shock.
What I didn't realise at the time, was how much I would miss my work mates.
Our work hours were so unsociable, that we tended to socialise together.
In 2001 I started working on a web site that would allow current and ex workers to stay in contact.
It went live last week, and is called Australians Reunited at http://www.australiansreunited.com.au
It includes both schools and workplaces, plus it's free to register, add schools/workplaces and a bit of info' about yourself.
It would be great if we could get as many workers on the site.
Regards
Vic Zurek
Bob Carr's recent media interviews urging "thematic campaigning" as an alternative to public policy formation for the federal ALP is not just dumb,it demonstrates that Bob Carr lacks integrity, is frightened of progressive public policy for the greater good, and that he is a weak scared little man with no regard for those who must wage for a living.
Only someone bereft of ideas who believes in gaining or staying in power at the expense of public policy would advocate the base concept of thematic campaigning.
The last two labor victories in NSW were achieved only because the Liberal opponents were so bad.
Are we the members of the labour movement still prepared to vote for him on the only basis that the opposition would be worse. Worse at what? Convincing Brad Pitt that Sydney is better place to make a film than the Gold Coast? Cost shifting to Medicare instead of increasing public health resources? Researching voters to find out what they wont be getting?
Bob Car needs to wage for a living and discover the realities of working for $14 to $15 dollars an hour where overtime is a precious commodity. He needs to explain why
the cost of car registration is almost twice that of Victoria, why public transport is increasingly unsafe, why the public health system cannot meet the needs of a person
with a broken finger.
Bob Carr should stop lecturing the Federal ALP with dumb ideas and try to understand that he is a Labor Premier who should be listening to the labour movement about the crises in public infrastructure, the decline in health services and the overcrowding in schools.
Finally Bob Carr should remember that, what you can do to
them, (thematic campaigning) they can do to you.
Paul Palmer
The banners of Greed are flying in tatters,
From blatant deception in Stock Market matters.
Reduced to a rabble of naive believers,
We dance to the tune of the people deceivers.
Instead of fulfilment and peace and content.
We are burdened by war and more unemployment.
Its time that the dictum of Greed be removed,
What is so good, that can not be improved?
Should we buy back the geese, laying golden eggs,
So our nation stands proudly upon it's own legs?
It's time for our "pollies" to strike a new note,
So keep this in mind when you next go to vote.
David Veltman
I have been a unionist all my working life and am only a couple of months off my life membership of the ALP (40 years), and cannot see why the unions are so upset about a 50-50 relationship with the ALP. Why not do as I did and join your local branch and have a monthly say in affairs political rather than wait for your annual conference to try to have your say? A
part from the fact that it is a long wait between meetings, there are plenty of times when your items don't get a mention because of shortage of time.We all know that the unions founded our poltical party but we have to move with the times.
Yours fraternally,
Bob Johnson.
Surely the hottest topic is the current chaos in the Stock Exchanges of the world.
Pardon my ignorance, but it seems that at the push of a button, (formerly "the stroke of a pen") leading stocks have had many billions of Pounds, Euros, Dollars, wiped off their value.
What pray, has happened to that "lost" money? Who has it now? and what real difference does that make to what is materially available for distribution? Is this whole market just a mirage, where people can indulge their urge to gamble, on illusory gains and illusury losses? Does no-one line their pockets through the bubble bursting?
Socialists are accused of living in a dreamworld of fairy land, but solid government run, essential enterprises, seem far more trustworthy to the majority of our population. An amazing 66% are against further privatisation of Telstra, but then one would have to be rather stupid to put their trust in a such a thoroughly discredited private enterprise sector.
The amazing thing is that they have come to this conclusion despite all the media propaganda to the contrary. If the Labour leaders were honest, with half a brain, they would be reverting to the principle of public ownership, and would be swept into power by providing a real alternative to greedy, collapsing, economic rationalism.
So what or who is keeping them from doing this?
David Veltman
by Peter Lewis
|
|
|
|
*********
The impression we get of the Clark government over in Australia is that it is a fairly progressive Labour government, that's had a lot to offer for the working people. Is that the experience on the ground within the union movement?
Very much so, the Labour government has delivered exactly what it promised it would do. It got rid of the Employment Contracts Act, it nationalised workers compensation, and moved to introduce whole new regimes for health and safety and employment. Those are just employment or industrial related issues. They've also stepped out and engaged in a whole discussion with the unions around rebuilding the state sector, which was stripped right back here during the 80s and 90s. So there's a whole focus on rebuilding capacity back into the state. Most importantly, they have also carefully crafted out a role for unions in industry and economic development, which is quite novel in New Zealand. So basically, it's been a lot more than just helping unions by getting rid of the ECA, its also about giving us some pathway forward.
Given all this you'd expect a sign off by the unions of a second term in the Clark Government. But was interested to see that some unions aren't actually endorsing Labour, they are saying: go for a number of parties. What's the thinking behind that?
Well, you've got to look back here, at a couple of things. Firstly, we've only got four unions actually affiliated to the Labour Party. In the last 10 or 15 years, there's no tradition of being a part of the Labour party, and that stems mostly from the reforms carried out in the mid 80s by Labour. So, essentially unions aren't bound into a formal linkage. I think also there's been strong support in proportional representation to prevent those sorts of excesses we had in the 80s and 90s, and so for a lot of unions it is not natural for them to say we support Labor alone, it is more natural for them to say: we don't support the Nationals' program and look for a Labour led coalition government.
Without that direct affiliation, what sort of policy input have your affiliates, particularly through the Council of Trade Union, had in the policy that Helen Clark is taking to the electorate?
A very good one. We're very pleased with it and we're very pleased with the policy the government have put out for the election. Our linkages have been both informal and formal. Informal, through the policy development process as it's being worked through, and more formally there's a formal set of consultations with the CTU. But basically we've been working really closely over the last three years. So the pre-election period has been merely a continuation of the work we've been doing since Labour came to power. The theme we're running is, there's a lot being done, and there's more to do.
You've obviously seen the debate within the Australian union circles between the unions and the ALP and the degree of input the unions should have, do you have a perspective on that?
Well, its an interesting debate from outside of the fray, but it's academic in the sense that we don't have that direct linkage between the unions and the New Zealand Labour Party. Its' interesting to watch as the unions in Aussie fight to ensure their voice is heard, and obviously we would strongly support that. It's important that unions get right into the middle of that debate, to argue out our issues and our cases,. So, where its happening in New Zealand in a more informal way, obviously in Australia you have systems and structures to alert people within the party and obviously the unions are fighting hard to make sure those rights continue.
Most Australians would be a bit ignorant of the history of the New Zealand Labour movement, but you're saying there was a period where there was a linkage and that's been broken over the 80s and 90s?
Well basically, Labor did the dirty on working people and their families when they pushed the reform process far too far during the 80s and basically sold everything off, corporatised, privatised, sold the state. It set up an environment whereby the when the National Party came to power in 1991 it could introduce the ECA - by that stage the labour market was really the only market that wasn't deregulated in New Zealand. So people got incredibly bitter about that and said: look our own people have not looked after our interests and therefore why should we continue to look after their interests? As a result of that, the Labour Party splintered off into what was called New Labor and then eventually Alliance. You also saw another peak trade union council emerge, within the trade union movement, and essentially what's happened over the 90s is, we've managed to reunify both industrial Labor and now there's only the one peak Council; at the same time the Alliance and Labor come together in the last government has sort of unified them politically.
And, that experience obviously, means that unions treat their relationship with the political parties, a little more discerningly?
Yes, certainly that's the case. What we're trying to do here is craft out a formal relationship with government. Now this is intellectually, and politically obviously, a difficult task. If you look back at the factors we need to work with. Firstly, very few direct affiliates of the Labour party are trade unions and we've seen this slightly more standoffish approach to Labour. Secondly, Labour is not and will not be governing on its own, it needs to have a relationship with the other parties to form government. Thirdly, there was in the last government, another party, the Greens, which supported the Labuor alliance government outside of being part of the administration. So it's a complex brew and all parties need to respect the history of each other, understand the current environment, and work out what's the nature, the form and the function of our relationship with government. Now we don't want to go down the line of an Accord or what we call a Compact in New Zealand, because the time for that has actually passed in the New Zealand context.
We're trying to craft that new relationship out on a sort of pragmatic issue based basis. Now, we were just starting to take the first steps in formalising that when the early election was announced, and so its been put back, but I know we'll continue should Helen Clark retain power. So both political labour and industrial labour are taking a very cautious approach, sensitively working towards what's the nature, the form and the function of that relationship. That's really the next exercise for the organised Labor movement as a whole - to shape out that relationship with government.
I guess in the absence of a formal mechanism, a lot of it comes down to personal relationships and a network within, between the two wings of the movement. Is there a strong union heritage within the group of elected leaders you've got at the moment?
Well, there's obviously a number of union MPs and we'll see more union MPs come in. Unfortunately one of the employees of the CTU, Carol Beaumont, director of our organising centres, who has done a terrific job for us in this role, is one of them and we would'll be sad to see her go. You also have a number of a number of the cabinet ministers in particular who have former union officials working directly with them in their offices.
The thing that we've found one of the most difficult issues to deal with is that the apparatus of the state just has no concept at all about dealing with unions. That's not because of any lack of will from the politicians or the ministers, it's simply the system and the officials are not used to having organised labour come on to the radar screen. Now we're three years down the track of this government, and we assume Labour will get back in again, and we're still struggling with that issue. It's obviously ian issue that the ACTU and the Australian trade union movement is going to struggle with when they turf Howard and his lot out as well. I can't emphasise enough that it's an incredibly difficult issue getting unions back into the mix of governmentsance and leadership in the country. You've just got to really argue to your core politicians to let you back in the door again. This is a really critical issue and for industry policy, economical development issues, all those sorts of things. They have to accept that organised labour is back and is an effective voice for working people and their families.
Having said that, it's a hell of big ask for unions as well, because in New Zealand, unions have been so used to defending their patch from attacks under the ECA, we've got to get them out of that trench and get them going forward. That's a hell of a big resource issue, and shift in thinking as well. So it's not just a big demand for the bureaucracy, it's a big demand for the trade union movement. All the central organising that the CTU can do is we can of open the doors and the windows for unions to hop through, but unions have to do it themselves, and that's a big ask.
There's no secret that you guys were absolutely decimated over the 80s and 90s. Has the advent of the Clark government helped you pull the numbers back, are you starting to trend back the right way?
We've shown pretty good increases over the last couple of years, but no where near as good as what we'd like. What the Clark government did was it set the framework for us to recover. But it still leaves an enormous ask for unions and organising, particularly in greenfield areas. I'm not that convinced that we're actually across that yet. What Helen Clark and the government has actually said is we'll change the frameworks, and we'll also change the culture so the word 'union' comes back into the vernacular, but we're not going to do your work for you, we're not going to go out there and force people to join unions. Now that's something that we accept and broadly speaking, our union say that's exactly the right way. We do have some emerging issues around collective bargaining, we're not seeing that grow as quickly as what we would have liked and we would be hoping to work with the new government around ways to stop employers undermining collective bargaining. That's an issue that is becoming increasing sharp as employers seek to undermine collective bargaining.
Finally, the NZ CTU has joined the Labor Net family, although I understand its met its own resistance back home. What's that experience taught you about the pros and cons of globalising the movement?
First of all, our affiliates are really wrapped with our new website and we're having a great number of hits and people are using it already. Out of that we're generating more work for the developers Social Change Online as other unions look to come out and use their technology. Also our links with NSW Labor Council, Victorian Labor Councils, ACTU, obviously our affiliates in New Zealand feel really comfortable with that, they just say that's a natural for what's a working class movement anyway. We would did receive some feedback from developers in New Zealand saying, we could do that, but the point is we're doing this in partnership with credible partners, which are peak councils in Australia, it just makes sense to do it that way
It's a great thing that the Workers Online news feed for instance, now sits on the CTU site. Have you other ideas of how you'd like to mature those links between the Australian and New Zealand Labor movement?
Well in terms of technology, we'd like to see our feed sitting on the peak Council sites in Australia. I think we need to find better ways of letting each other now what's going on inside each of the different movements, and I don't think we do that tremendously well at the moment. My background in the finance sector union has meant that I had to take a close interest in what's happened in Australia, and I think we need to look at how we can do that technically, but also I think Australian unions need to continue to pay attention to developments within New Zealand. I think that's really important.
There's a major review on at the moment around the closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand. Now it's not the biggest trade agreement that either country belongs to but its really significant, particularly for manufacturing on both sides of the ditch. Now that's the sort of thing we should be working very closely together on, and yet all we hear from is business - we're not getting in and making sure our voice is being heard.
|
|
|
|
***********
Green MLC Lee Rhiannon stood on the steps of the Family Court building in Goulburn St after five weeks of hearings in Sydney and labelled the Cole Royal Commission "a highly political tool of a ruthless federal government".
Her comments came on the back of loud complaints from unions that they were being "stitched up".
Why the outcry?
Because in terms of overall process, hearing procedure and its terms of reference, the performance put on in Sydney was fundamentally flawed.
Background
The Cole Royal Commission was set up on August 29, 2001, by Workplace Relations Minister, Tony Abbott, to inquire into and report back on any "illegal or otherwise inappropriate" practices in the building and construction industry. It is due to report to Parliament by the end of this year, with recommendations.
In establishing the Commission Abbott was no doubt mindful of the sage advice proferred by former federal treasurer, Artie Fadden, who once warned: "Never have a royal commission unless you know the result."
Abbott appointed Terence Cole, QC, a former commercial lawyer and long-serving judge as Commissioner, and made Colin Thatcher, previously with the Business Council of Australia and an advisor to state governments enacting anti-worker legislation, its secretary.
Derren Gillespie, involved in the 1998 Waterfront Dispute on the Federal Government side, was roped in as a key administrator, responsible for planning the Commission's program; managing interstate hearings; reviewing research; and commenting on submissions.
Melbourne QC, Nicholas Green, who had recently acted for the Office of the Employment Advocate against the CFMEU, became a senior Counsel Assisting.
The Federal Government initially budgeted $7 million for its Royal Commission but quickly inflated that figure to $60 million, more than double the amount allocated to the Royal Commission investigating the HIH collapse, Australia's largest corporate failure.
To put the Commission budget into perspective, it is more than 20 times the amount allocated to primary healthcare for indigenous Australians, and five times greater than federal funding to help the jobless find work.
Abbott's Royal Commission is a tax-payer funded bonanza for key players. Cole's $660,000 per year, plus perks, makes him the highest paid individual on the Government payroll, dragging in more than double the Prime Minister's salary.
Thatcher's secretarial services bring more than $200,000 a year. A raft of counsels assisting, including Green, will divvy up the bulk of $19.1 million taxpayer dollars, earmaked for lawyers.
More importantly than might at first be realised, $700,000 has been designated for "media relations".
To be fair to Abbott, if his Commission had a mind to do a thorough job, he provided the resources. Besides the cold, hard cash, he put at its disposal 135 fulltime workers as well as Government lawyers, the Office of the Employment Advocate and agents of the Australian Federal Police and National Crimes Authority.
Just this month, Thatcher admitted to Senate Estimates it had also had the benefit of communications intercepts - telephone tapping, that sort of thing.
Before we go into the specifics of how the Cole Commission went about its task in Sydney, it is important to bear in mind some facts about a Royal Commission:
- Despite appearances, and sweeping powers, Royal Commissions are not an arm of the judiciary but of the executive. In other words, they are creatures of Government, rather than law.
- Theoretically, as the title suggests, Royal Commissions are Inquisitorial rather than Prosecutorial. In other words, they inquire into a subject, rather than seek to mount a prosecution.
- For that reason, powerful counsels assisting, who lead and present all the evidence, do not have the formal obligations of fairness encumbent on prosecutors in courts of law. It is the contention of this observer that the CFMEU would have been better served if, in fact, the commission had been technically prosecutorial and, thus, obliged to present evidence in a balanced and objective manner.
The Overall Process
A phalanx of Commission investigators - lawyers, officers of the Federal Police and National Crimes Authority, and staff from the Office of the Employment Advocate - spent months in NSW gathering evidence to be presented at the Sydney hearings.
They are understood to have interviewed around 200 people and, as a result, had gathered 110 statements of evidence by the time hearings began on Monday, June 3.
Remembering their terms of reference, and resources at their disposal, consider how they addressed key industry issues:
WORKPLACE SAFETY - one building worker is killed every week in Australia and, in 1999 alone, 475,000 working days were lost through injury, far more than through industrial action. The Maori community rallied during the Sydney hearings to mourn four of their own killed on city building sites. Employers of killed workers have been found guilty of negligence in criminal courts. Many industry observers, and participants, consider occupational health and safety a priority issue.
Cole Commission investigators did not produce a statement from a single person in NSW alleging illegal or innapropriate practices with regard to workplace safety.
TAX RORTS - Tony Abbott's insistence that "there is no evidence that tax evasion is more prevalent in this industry than others" is comprehensively refuted by an Australian Tax Office submission to the Commission. It says the building industry hides up to 40 percent of its income and is twice as likely to have outstanding tax debts as other Australian industries
The ATO submits that levels of non-compliance are "high and widespread" amongst smaller industry operators, and reveals it will be adding another 50 fulltime staff to the 220 already dedicated to monitoring building and construction. It has been allegeded in the NSW State Parliament that construction industry employers are swindling state and federal treasuries out of a staggering $1 billion a year.
Despite ample evidence on the public record, counsel assisting chose not to produce a single witness statement alleging tax rorts in NSW.
PHOENIXING - the practise of going belly-up in one guise only to return to building sites under another company name, typically denying workers their entitlements, driving sub-contractors to the wall and depriving state and federal treasuries of tax and/or workers comp payments. The ATO submission identified phoenixing as a problem for the industry, saying it was "used to evade payment of tax liabilities through the deliberate and systematic liquidation of trading entities".
It has dedicated 30 staff to a special Phoenix Project. So far they have finalised 400 cases and have "raised" or "collected" more than $200 million in taxes or penalties. The Phoenix Project has another 150 cases pending.
Cole Commission investigators failed to come up with one witness statement alleging phoenix operations anywhere in NSW.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION - a bugbear of the country's largest construction union, the CFMEU, which says unscrupulous employers use illegals to drive down wages and safety standards, and to avoid workers comp, tax and other liabilities. Commissioner Cole is on record, saying that the problem, "on the information available, to date, would appear to be insignificant".
Every day during the Sydney hearings, a Serbian master artist brought to Australia on a special immigration visa and paid $50 a week, captured events on drawing paper.
On the final day of Sydney hearings, DIMA swooped on a Waitara building site where 15 employees of Modern Drywall were arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally.
Cole Commission investigators didn't produce a single statement alleging the illegal or improper use of immigrant labour.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - a bugbear of Commission architect Tony Abbott and the Office of the Employment Advocate. They allege the CFMEU uses industrial muscle to enforce union membership but rarely, if ever, make mention of employer misdemeanors, although these have been chronicled in transcripts and judgements of the AIRC, NSW IRC, criminal and civil courts.
Each of the 110 statements initially produced by Commission investigators dealt with industrial relations. A handful - from peak industry, employer and worker organisations presented overviews - all the rest made specific allegations of illegal or inappropriate activity against the CFMEU or its members. Not one leveled such an allegation against any employer, except where an employer was alleged to have colluded with the union.
Thus, from the off, the Sydney hearings were unbalanced, paying scant regard to terms of reference in which the CFMEU was not even mentioned. In fact, while the terms refer to "workplace practices" they also specifically nominate "occupational health and safety", "fraud", and "corruption" and we have already seen how investigators chose to deal with those subjects.
To emphasise this imbalance, investigators chose not to interview or prepare a statement from a single CFMEU member in NSW, not even for the purposes of testing damaging claims they intended to make.
The approach of investigators was inadvertently revealed by South Coast employer, Glenn Allan Colquhoun, during testimony.
"At 11.30am during the course of my meeting with CMG and TL, two members of the commission arrived. I believe one member was Mr Neil Williamson and I am not sure of the other member's name," Colquhoun testified.
"Mr Williamson said to the effect: "We are investigating the CFMEU's activity in the Illawarra area and are particularly interested in matters pertaining to (Wollongong organiser) Mr Primmer."
Once the investigators spent their share of our $60 million, counsels assisting took over. In Sydney, Green was backed primarily by experienced legal practitioners Ron Gipp and Dr Matt Collins.
These men were central to the farce that unfolded. Investigators had been broken into four teams, each head by a counsel assisting, then it was the job of counsels to prepare statements of evidence and lead that evidence before the commission. They carried out these tasks with as little regard to balance or fairness as the investigators who had armed them.
Collins came up with a classic, alleging, in effect, that the CFMEU had accepted a $2.25 million bribe to deliver industrial peace to Meriton.
His basis? Commission discovery orders showed the CFMEU had turned down an $8.25 million offer for its central Sydney offices in May, 1997, yet sold the property to developer Meriton in July, 1999, for $10.5 million.
Collins told the Commission he had been unable to ascertain whether, in the interim, the vendor had obtained a development order that would have substantially boosted the site's value. The truth is it had, and Collins could have found out, if had been inclined, by asking.
Without a witness, or doing the most basic research, he launched the accusation and was rewarded with predictable headlines in the following day's papers.
Counsels tendered evidence that would have been inadmissable in any legal forum. Hearsay and unattributed allegations were read into the record. To generate newspaper headlines they relied almost entirely on small industry players with obvious axes to grind.
Clearly, these people are as entitled as any others to tell their stories but, in such a forum, you would expect experienced lawyers, with massive resources at their disposal, to at least offer passing nods to the principles of balance and credibility. Instead, masses of such evidence available on the public record, was either not sought or withheld, as we will show.
Two examples demonstrate the type of "evidence" levelled against the CFMEU and the lack of objectivity applied by counsels.
Eddie Lombardo
Lombardo, supervisor for TCB Concreters Pty Ltd, gave evidence that union demands had forced the company into liquidation with the loss of 29 jobs. He alleged the CFMEU had tried to use safety issues to push the company into signing an EBA, and that that a union official had suggested "backhanders" would make the company's problems disappear. Lombardo got plenty of coverage for his claims.
At the completion of his written evidence he testified:
"I have since commenced business myself again. I have co-operated with the Royal Commission in relation to these matters but I am really worried that by doing so I may become a target of the Union or others and it may effect my ability to work in the industry in the future."
Days later, when the union responded, it argued TCB had come in for attention because Lombardo was a phoenixer who had repeatedly left workers, and others, out of pocket before reappearing in other guises. It had, it claimed, been trying to make certain the current operation was above board.
Lombardo denied this but wavered under cross examination.
- I just want to ask you about a number of companies and whether you were involved with them, Mr Lombardo. Ritex Concrete Contractors Pty Ltd? - Yes I was.
- What happened to that company? Is it still in existence? -- Ritex Concrete, sorry.
- Ritex Concrete Contractors Pty Ltd? -- ? No, I think it's been liquidated. We're talking 10 or 12 years ago, or more.
- It had employees? - Yes, it did.
- It went into liquidation - That's right.
- Did it owe workers money at the time? - It was myself and another two partners involved. I was on the field, I was a supervisor at that time, supervisor plus a worker at the same time. To my knowledge, no, there was no money owed.
- What about the Tax Department - I don't know.
Then later ...
- What about Ritex Formwork Pty Ltd? - I was director of Ritex Formwork, too ...
- What happened to that? - That went into liquidation, too.
- Why did it go into liquidation? - Like I said before, I was a supervisor plus a concreter at the same time. I was not in the formwork side of it.
- You don't know why it went into liquidation either? - I was not involved in the formwork side of it.
- You were a director, weren't you, of that company? - I was a director of Ritex Concrete Contractors at the time.
To cut a long story short, Lombardo went on to spill the beans on Ritex Contractors Pty Ltd, Cotec Contractors Pty Ltd, Cotec Administration Ptd Lty, Ritex Holdings Pty Ltd, Cotec Concrete Pty Ltd, Erinmore Holdings Pty Ltd, Hitex Concrete Pty Ltd, all liquidated or in administration.
He had also been a director of the similarly unfortunate Ricon Construction Pty Ltd, Ricon International Holdings Pty Ltd, Ricon Design and Construction but had given up those positions before their demise. He was barred from being a company director in 1996.
Remember that date!
Why counsel assisting hadn't found this background relevant to their investigations, particularly given Lombardo's testimony that he is back in business for himself, was never made clear.
Even more extraordinary was their decision not to interview, or call to the stand, a certain Mohammad Ali whose relationship to their man, Lombardo, is on the public record.
If you want evidence of an extraordinary stitch-up, read on..
Following publication of Lombardo's testimony, Ali was moved to make a statutory declaration of his own. He said that, following his 1991 migration from India, he had...
- begun a work experience job with Ricon Constructions Pty Ltd which led to fulltime employment as an estimator. In this position he met company directors, Sam Cantarella and Eddie Lombardo.
- He went on to do the same work for them at subsequent entities - Cotec Contractors Pty Ltd, Cotec Concrete Pty Ltd and Hitex Concrete Pty Ltd.
- Around 1996, Cantarella and Lombardo asked him to become a director
- "From what I had been told, I believed that becoming a director was an honour or a sign of respect, that it was a form of promotion of my position within the company, and that I should accept."
- "I continued to perform my duties as an estimator for the company ...My salary remained unchanged."
- "Sam and Eddie and other persons, such as Joe, met together from time to time at the company's premises at 1 Mavis St, Revesby, but I was not invited to attend these meetings, and I did not do so. I took no part in the management of the company at any time..."
- "In September, 1998, Sam and Eddie told me that they were opening a new company and would like to make me a director. Once again I signed documents which had been handed to me by Joe. The new company was named Hitex Concrete Australia Pty Ltd ... "
- In February, 1999, Hitex Concrete Australia Pty Ltd also went into liquidation. Ali ceased working with Lombardo and Cantarella and got a job with another company.
- "After Hitex Contrete Pty Ltd closed down Mr Lombardo set up Lagiru Pty Ltd. He was never a director of this company as he was not allowed to be. He, however, controlled the company with Mr Cantarella. Attached at Appendix C is a proposal for the new company.
- "Mr Lombardo stopped having anything to do with Lagiru after he found out that he was not going to earn as much money through that company. He told me at the time that he left Lagiru and was setting up a new company called TCB Concreters Pty Ltd. He said to me in relation to TCB words to the effect of "I'm not the director but I own the company." The workers who were going to work for TCB had previously worked for Mr Lombardo's previous companies including Lagiru, Cotec, Hitex and Ritex."
- Imagine Ali's surprise, on August 6, 1999, when he was personally served with a bankruptcy notice, relating to an unpaid company tax bill of $292,515.64. When he didn't hear from Cantarella or Lombardo, within a fortnight, his new employer convinced him it was a serious matter and arranged an appointment with a solicitor.
The Royal Commission was furnished with Ali's affidavit but chose not to call him as a witness.
Ferdinando Sanna
Betaform Construction boss Ferdinando Sanna was another who won plenty of column inches for the anti-CFMEU crusade. Essentially, he argued, the union drove his company to the wall by forcing it off sites where it held form working contracts because its employees were not union members. As an example, he cited, the NIDA dispute where employees struck for seven or eight days.
Further, Sanna contended, the CFMEU had the tacit support of head contractors for its campaign to force small players out of the industry.
In a conspiracy theory that was music to counsels' ears, Sanna testified: "I think it was all done between the builder and the union to send Betaform into voluntary liquidation ... I believe this union is out there getting rid of the smaller subcontractors, keeping the big ones alive, because the big ones have got the money, give them something underneath the table, shut them up and carry on ...":
In order to give the claims some perspective it might have been useful if counsels had first spoken to union organiser, Martin Wyre, delegates from the NIDA job, or even their families.
When Wyre gave evidence about the dispute, he claimed Sanna's father had threatened to kill him and that management had poured petrol on a smoko hut and threatened to set it alight with the workers inside.
He also told the Commission of complaints to the police from one delegate's wife that she had fielded 13 anonymous calls, around this time, threatening that she would be raped.
Essentially, the union claimed, Sanna attracted attention because he had a history of running phoenix operations, defaulting on taxes and was behind in his workers compensation payments.
Read excerpts from the transcripts and judge for yourself ...
Sanna: "Back then, that's when Sacom - Sanna Constructions came, a long time before that and there was nothing wrong with Sanna Constructions, and Sacom I was a director, me and my mother, and then Sacom-Clarevale Enterprises I was a director, because back then, when Sacom went into liquidation, I was going - between my parents' divorce and that, it was a big divorce, I said to my father - I wasn't getting along with him either - I will take on the labour force. That is where Sacom Building Construction came along and Sacom Building Australia, I took on the labour force. At the end of the day, it's a hard industry that's out there, and that's it. Boltrum was another company that took on just the work from Sacom building and Sacom Building Australia, as a labour force ...
How many of these companies still exist? - Basically, Sacom Building Australia and Sacom Building Construction got a bill of $800,000 owed to workers comp. It's not that we weren't paying our premiums, it's the workers comp link - saying they're all one company...
Just tell me which ones exist, Sacom Constructions? - Sacom Construction is in voluntary liquidation, me and my mother.
Sanna Constructions? - Sanna Constructions is still on the books, it's still operating, but it's there, the name is there, it could be operated any day, it can start tomorrow, if it wants, but it's just there, we are not using it.
Clarevale Enterprises? - Clarevale Enterprises, we, as a labour force, I couldn't make ends meet I had to send the company into liquidation.
Voltrum? - Voltrum, I wasn't a director of that company. I was employed by that company. It was taking on the labour force, the same as taking on the labour force from Sacom Building, and also that went into liquidation, too.
Sacom Building BC Pty Ltd? -- Sacom building Construction.
Is that in liquidation? - Sacom Building Construction and Sacom Building Australia Pty Ltd, they had to go voluntarily in liquidation because the workers comp was hitting ..."
Haughtons Structural? - Haughtons got nothing to do with us. My brother, he's got his own business, he's on his own. All these other companies, except Sungain and Betaform, is - Haughton Panels, that's got nothing to do with us, that is me brother, he's on hiw own, Haughton Constructions is on its own, and he's on his own, it's got nothing to do with me ...
On and on it went.
Had he reneged on an agreement for repayments to the ATO? "We were financially in trouble then, yes, but little does the union tell - the union only makes us look the bad one ..."
Had he underpaid workers comp premiums? "That is incorrect, because they done - at the end of the financial year with Betaform now, Betaform, with the year that just went past, owes $150,000, yes, it does but we we've got agreements with the workers comp for instalments and they are happy ..."
Alternatively, if investigators had bothered to investigate, they could have gone to the public record and found a court judgement, dated June 8, 2001, against Sangain Pty Ltd and Mario Sanna, in favour of the ATO.
If they had been so inclined, they would also have discovered it was set aside, in March 2002, following agreement that Sangain and Sanna would pay the ATO the sum of $320,000 in two installments.
We have met some of the characters wheeled out to dish dirt on the union but they were only part of the story. What about employers, who were interviewed, but didn't make the cut?
We'll never know all their stories but three have so far come forward to shed light on the selection process.
The Rejects
In a statutory declaration, signed on May 9, 2002, JR Rigging manager, John Chandler, says the Commission brushed evidence of insurance fraud, stand-over tactics, falsified inspection records and major health and safety breaches because the union was not implicated.
Chandler said he provided evidence of structural flaws in a sports complex that left public safety in jeopardy but the Commission hadn't wanted to know.
At a December, 2001 interview with two Commission investigators, he said he made a series of criminal allegations against big building companies. These included fraud, threatening behaviour, conspiracy and collusion, in an effort to suppress legitimate concerns over construction standards.
However, he declared, it was only when he mentioned unions that investigators became "extraordinarily interested".
"My overall impression was that the investigators were much more concerned with hearing anything about the union than they were with large scale cover-ups by a major construction company," Chandler declared.
Chandler said when he tendered supporting documentation a female investigator told him the story was "huge". On March 18, the commission informed him it would not be investigating his allegations and he would not be required to give evidence.
A western Sydney builder, who refused to give his surname "because I want to keep working in the industry" said he had been pressured by commission investigators, and counsel assisting, to sign a false declaration.
John said he had been approached by two investigators and asked to give a statement about his dealings with the CFMEU.
"Sure, I've had my problems with the CFMEU, who hasn't?", he said. "I'd been through an unfair dismissal case and didn't think I got a fair go.
John said he related that incident to investigators but when they returned with a typed-up witness statement, three weeks later, "everything had been blown out of all proportion" and at least two untruths had been incorporated. He identified these as being:
- that the union had coerced him into contributing to its picnic fund
- that if a 36-hour week came into the industry his company would go under.
John said he refused to sign the bodgeyed statement and had to throw "threatening and intimidating" investigators off his property.
The builder said that three weeks later, he received a subpoena to attend the Commission on June 21. On arriving in Sydney, he was interviewed by one of the counsels assisting who also tried to convince him to sign the inaccurate witness statement.
"I told him the statement had been exaggerated and they had added in pieces that I had never said. Then he asked me if I had been threatened by anyone and, I said, - yes, by your blokes."
Another point of contention with counsel assisting, John said, had been compulsory unionism. His company had worked on a project subject to commission scrutiny and he rejected the claim that workers had been coerced into signing up with the CFMEU.
In the end, counsel assisting decided it was a view the commission didn't need to hear and sent him packing.
Equally instructive is a letter sent to Construction Administration Services (CAS) by another western Sydney employer who didn't want her name published.
CAS is an auditing firm which often checks company records before the CFMEU enters negotiations with them. For some reason it took a pounding from counsels assisting who tried to paint it as an off-shoot of the union, and even suggested it operated out of the same Lidcombe building.
In fact, CAS is an independent auditing firm based at Rockdale. Its major clients include Workcover and a national real estate firm. Principals insist that less than 20 percent of their work is union related.
In a letter to partners, Rosemary Saridakis and Angelo Russo, this employer lays out an increasingly familiar scenario. She says she was interviewed by two men who identified themselves as Royal Commission investigators. One identified himself as Greg Alford and the other she remembered only as Richard.
After detailing a number of questions she gets to the one that terminated their conversation.
"Is there anything else that was different in your EBA and to what Rosemary has asked you do," she records investigators asking.
"No, in fact I often ring Rosemary up for advice and I have found her helpful and she does not even charge our company for the advice I have asked her for."
"Rosemary," the employer writes, "this is where Richard switched off the recording machine and said to Greg: "Well, that's not what we wanted to hear."
The Accused
Clearly, such partisan gathering and presentation of evidence spelled problems for the CFMEU as an organisation but it is worth remembering that organisations are made up of people and there was also a significant personal cost to be paid.
Undoubtedly, the commission experience damaged the standing and reputations of certain individuals. Some, like Sammy Manna, who sensationally recanted evidence of a relationship with a female employer, brought it on themselves. Others got a workout they will probably never forget and, arguably, didn't deserve .
This reporter has never met nor spoken to Tommy Mitchell or Dave Kelly and is unable to provide any opinion on what either is like as a person or trade union official.
Tommy Mitchell
Formerly with Norm Gallagher's controversial BLF, Mitchell now organises for the CFMEU on Sydney's northern beaches. He got a number of unfavourable mentions in the Commission, the most sensational coming courtesy of the husband and wife team at the head of S & B Industries.
Barbara Strong alleged Mitchell had threatened to break her arms and legs and then threatened her young children. She also alleged he had demanded kickbacks of $5000 and $10,000 from her and husband, Stephen, to call off industrial action on their Manly site.
The media, naturally, leapt on these claims and Mitchell was the subject of headlines for days. The papers carred his photo and the Daily Telegraph even caricatured him as a muscle bound gym junkie, hiding behind dark shades.
The Strongs alleged that threats and financial demands, which Mitchell emphatically denied, were made at an on-site meeting, and again in telephone conversations.
At the site meeting, evidence suggested, seven adults had been present - the Strongs, Mitchell, another union organiser, two representatives of the head contractor and an MBA rep, acting for the Strongs. Another man, a sub-contractor to the Strongs, was outside and heard most of what was, according to all reports, a heated discussion.
As the days wore on, and others, at and outside that meeting, tendered evidence, it transpired that none of the other six could recall the alleged threat of physical violence. Further, only one, the Strong's representative, Geoff Thomas, had any recollection of the alleged sums of money being raised and he thought Mitchell had mentioned $5000 in an industrial context.
Thomas further testified that if he had thought there had been any suggestion of a bribe he would have reported it to police.
One by one, others who had been present, either denied or couldn't confirm, key Strong testimony about surrounding events.
In fact, the only threat that everyone present appeared to have heard was made against Mitchell by Mr Strong.
"There's a target on your head, ready for a fucking bullet," was Mitchell's recall, while Strong conceded, in evidence, "I then said to Mr Mitchell words to the effect of - you're walking around with a bullseye on your forehead." Others had their own variations on the wording.
Anyway, around this point the meeting broke up in mayhem, Manly police were called and took evidence from all parties.
The Strongs allege that after Mitchell made a threatening telephone call, they reported it to police and provided statements.
Interestingly, the commission never called, or tendered evidence, from police officers involved in either incident.
Dave Kelly
The Illawarra Mercury of July 22 carried a full double page feature devoted to CFMEU Wollongong organiser, Dave Kelly, and his nemesis, South Coast building industry mogul, Colleen Camarda.
Kelly was pictured with a Vietnamese helmet Camarda had brought back for him from a business trip to Vietnam. The pair expressed grudging respect for one another.
It was not, needless to say, the picture painted by Counsel Assisting Gipp when he addressed the relationship before the Royal Commission.
Quoting from a letter, of some vintage, to the CFMEU from Master Builders Association representative, Brian Seidler, Gipp accused Kelly of saying of Camarda he would "put her pelt on his belt" and her "head on a stick".
Kelly's insistence that he respected his adversary and the comments had come during a telephone call, initiated by Seidler, while he was drinking after work, cut little ice with Gipp.
He went on to another quote attributed to Kelly: "I am in my tank, heading down the South Coast, and I am going to crush any employer who gets in my way."
And he had another, about setting up Soviet-style communes up and down the South Coast, and another that Kelly would give a company a "thrashing" if it didn't sign an agreement.
Kelly insisted the comments were either "industry parlance" or "humour" but Gipp, characterised them as serious threats, designed to frighten and intimidate.
A number of South Coast employers gave evidence that Kelly stood over them and abused safety concerns in a bid to force employees into the CFMEU, contravening freedom of association provisions in the Workplace Relations Act..
When Kelly gave evidence he testified to having been frog-marched off a site at gun point, throttled by one employer and threatened by others.
He was able to point to independent decisions against his accusers, including IRC rulings; Workcover closure of sites on health and safety grounds; and a September, 2000, IRC order reinstating two workers who it ruled had been "principally" dismissed because of their union affiliations, also, presumably, contravening freedom of association principles.
Kelly said he had been assaulted by another employer, represented by the Employment Advocate, and that person had subsequently been charged by police.
Naturally, all of this information either evaded commission investigators or was withheld by them.
Kelly, though, was probably most deeply hurt by Green's use of a five-year-old letter from the Master Builders which passed on claims that he had used racist terms. It was hearsay, which didn't even identify the author of the allegations.
Although counsels assisting had had the letter's author, Brian Seidler, on the stand more than once they never asked him what, if any store, he placed on the allegations.
Strenuous legal objections were rejected by the Commissioner who ruled "this is not a slur. This is a formal complaint from the Master Builders Association .... "
Kelly denied the claim emphatically but the commission had its headline. His photo appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald under a "Jewish Slur" banner.
Employer's Advocate
At this point it is probably worth touching on the role played by the Federal Government's Office of the Employment Advocate, headed-up by Jonathan Hamberger.
While it was intimately involved with the one-sided investigation carried out by the Cole Commission, evidence from worker and employer representatives made it clear that the OEA had been championing industry employers well before the Royal Commission came into being.
Not only did the OEA advocate for the employer who assaulted Dave Kelly, but Eddie Lombardo testified it had represented TCB Concreters in negotiations with the union.
During testimony, more than one employer referred to the organisation as the Employer, or, Employers' Advocate. While these labels might be technically inacurrate, it is easy to understand how such misconceptions took hold..
The Procedure
Finally, we enter the hearing rooms themselves. While investigators and counsels appear to have made most of the play to this point, there is no doubt who is King on the seventh floor of the Family Court building in Goulburn St.
This is the realm of Terence Cole, the QC who lends his name to the proceedings.
Because there are no set rules for Royal Commissions, Commissioners are vested with sweeping powers of discretion. There is plenty of tradition to be guided by but it is not writ in stone as Cole lost little time in demonstrating.
On Friday, June 14, he stunned observers with directions that turned tradition on its head, backing counsel assisting Green's decision to call no union witnesses.
CFMEU lawyer Steve Crawshaw protested it was an "amazing" way to run an inquiry.
"I have been involved in many inquiries, including the Gyles Royal Commission, royal commissions, inquests, inquiries, and never have I had it suggested that those conducting the inquiry should only call one side of the story," he argued.
"Here, it's been all one-side. We have heard two weeks of evidence, all one-way, and counsel assisting don't propose, as I understand it, to call any evidence to the contrary."
The Commissioner brought him up short, saying there had never been an inquiry such as his. It was, Cole contended, "a bit facile" to suggest there should be a "new-found spirit of co-operation".
Cole backed up his ruling by directing that union lawyers would only be able to cross examine on a narrowly defined basis. To ask questions in cross examination they had first to have led contradictory evidence, then they would be limited to matters of factual dispute.
So, in practise, what did this mean?
Essentially, that the union had been ambushed. Normally, in Royal Commissions, all evidence is led by counsels assisting. In order to do this they are armed with the personnel and resources we have already examined.
Suddenly, three weeks short of vacating Sydney, Cole had changed the rules. Union witnesses could still be heard but they had to prepare their own statements and include, within them, every single item they wanted to cross examine on.
At this point, nearly 100 anti-union witnesses had been led and multiple annexures filed. The commission was still leading hostile witnesses and filing supporting documents on the court book.
This left the three-person union legal team around a fortnight to file comprehensive statements, countering every allegation raised and those still coming in, whilst monitoring hundreds of additional pages of evidence and documentation going up daily.
Simultaneously, they had to cross examine commission witnesses. It is doubtful that any of the union counsel felt comfortable with their cross examinations in these circumstances.
The severe time constraint prevented the union countering all the allegations it wished to contend.
But there was another sting in the tail of Cole's directions. While the commission would not use its resources to prepare union statements, each would still be led by a counsel assisting, rather than a union lawyer.
In practice, this turned the leading of union evidence into an aggressive, often combative, cross examination. This stood in stark contrast to the kid-glove treatment handed to earlier witnesses where, in some cases, counsels assisting had virtually read witness statements through, requiring the person on the stand to only occassionally utter the words "that's correct".
This de facto cross examination of union witnesses, often as not, went directly to credibility, an opportunity specifically denied the union by Cole's insistence that cross examination be limited to matters of factual dispute.
Under this ruling, Cole denied an application to cross examine Lombardo about the unfortunate Ali. Because Lombardo had not mentioned Ali in his testimony, one way or the other, Cole ruled there was no contradictory evidence before him.
But, despite his ruling, Cole regularly rejected cross examinations that went to contradictory evidence. He turned down literally hundreds of application to cross examine.
One clear example came when an employer testified that a union official had come onto his site and cut power cables during a health and safety dispute. The organiser concerned disputed this, on the stand, saying he had removed the cords from the power box because they had not been tagged.
Cole rejected an application to cross examine the employer, despite this contradiction.
It wasn't just on the stand where the union, and its members, found themselves subject to inferior treatment.
One observer doubted that any employer witness was kept waiting more than a couple of hours before being called to the stand.
Union officials, on the other hand, were kept waiting around day after day. In some instances, individuals from Wollongong, were brought back on five consecutive days, before being called to give evidence.
The Wash-Up
So, we come to July 5, the date set by Commissioner Cole for counsels assisting to provide a list of persons, and organisations, they might seek adverse findings against. The list was not to be comprehensive, leaving room for others to be added, but certainly would give an indication of where the Sydney proceedings were headed.
Duly, counsels assisting listed 32 persons and organisations. And guess what? Not one employer, or employing company, made the list.
There was no Eddie Lombardo, no Ferndinado or Mario Sanna, no TCB Concreters or Betaform, nor any other of the myriad guises they might travel under. There was no Stephen Strong or S & B Industries.
The South Coast employer charged with assault didn't get a guernsey and neither did the company which defied IRC reinstatement orders, after being found guilty of breaching the Workplace Relations Act by dismissing workers "principally" because of their union affiliations.
Frankly, after seeing the commission in action for five weeks, there were no surprises.
|
|
|
|
Long hours is a white hot issue in the workplace and the ACTU's Reasonable Hours case gives unions a pointer to a core responsibility and a touchstone issue to mobilise around.
Over the last year different ACTU research into workplace issues has found the same thing: long hours and the intensification of work is the overwhelming primary concern of workers. Not pay or OHS, not 60:40 nor Tony Abbott nor the Unfair Dismissal laws. Not the Workplace Relations Act nor the Building Royal Commission nor the Living Wage. These issues at the centre of media, political and union debate barely register on the radar of working people. The research consistently reveals the sense of self-destruction many people feel about work and its increasing intensity. ACTU researchers have been amazed at the passion and pain it evokes across all demographics - blue collar/white collar, young and old, men and women.
We can assume from the response of Tony Abbott to this week's decision in the Reasonable Hours case when he grudgingly complimented the ACTU for running the case and the positioning of the Liberals on work and family issues over the last month that Liberal research is telling them the same thing.
The extent to which Australia's long hours culture is killing our families is horrifying. The ACTU's 50 Families Report - part of the Reasonable Hours case submission - painted a terrifying picture of family destruction and suffering. Suicidal tendencies, depression, family breakdowns and destructive consequences for our kids was widespread.
It's now a right to say no
For those whose eyes glaze over at the sight of a legal document the significance of the AIRC's decision in the Reasonable Hours case this week was not immediately obvious. But on closer inspection the result is a landmark.
The big change arising from the decision is subtle but significant - rejecting overtime is now the right of an employee rather than a responsibility left to the employer.
While the Commission passed on the ACTU's claim for a remedy of days off for workers who worked beyond these guidelines it came up with an alternative that gives union members scope to act to improve their working lives.
The Commission accepted the ACTU's argument that workers should have the right to refuse overtime if it is unreasonable because of family responsibilities or risks to health and safety.
This means workers can legally refuse overtime where it would lead to unreasonable hours without fear of losing their jobs.
ACTU Assistant Secretary Richard Marles, who ran the ACTU's case in the commission, says the result provides union members with solid backing to reverse an obnoxious trend in play for the last twenty years.
'During that time workers have lost control over their own lives as more and more time and energy is handed over to the boss with longer and longer hours and greater intensification of work,' he says.
'Before employers could work people beyond reasonable time. This decision gives a limit, employees can now shut the door.'
A problem no longer hidden
Equally significant in the AIRC's decision was its acknowledgement as fact the large body of evidence presented by the ACTU which painted Australia as a working hours disaster. Employers and the Federal Government had both denied in extensive evidence that any such problem existed.
The extent of this disaster is worth repeating:
· Australians are working more hours than in any other country in the OECD bar one
· 2.4 million Australians work more than 45 hours a week
· 1.6 million work more than 50 hours
· Average weekly hours has increased by 3.7 hours since 1982
· A quarter of full time employees are not paid for an average of 2.7 hours per week
· A third of Australian workers work hours that would be deemed illegal in Europe
A serious challenge for unions
Richard Marles says for a hundred years up to 1947 when the 40 hour week was won, Australia led the world in fair working time. Each union campaign actually led to a decrease in the hours worked by Australian workers.
'But in 1980 Australia started to buck the trend and hours began to grow. We became one of the few countries in the world where the average hours of work started increasing.'
'Ironically this occurred despite the advent of the 38 hour week in 1983. Twenty years on it is clear the 38 hour week was a defacto wage increase rather than about reducing hours of work.'
'Now the union movement has to take responsibility for the future. We have to be serious about reducing the amount of time workers spend at the workplace. If we don't we are failing in our responsibility to our constituency.'
Another dent in the Government's slash and burn agenda
Richard Marles says a little recognised consequence of the Reasonable Hours decision is how the commission has painted itself back into the industrial relations landscape.
'Although the union movement didn't get all it was after we've still being given an award standard. It is the first arbitrated test case since Howard came to power in the face of substantial efforts by the Federal Government and employers in opposing our case. By asserting its right to establish a standard the Commission has given itself new life and thwarted the Government's attempts to undermine the authority of the independent umpire.'
|
|
|
|
Lombardo and Sanna are phoenixers, according to the CFMEU, operators who open and close down building companies at the cost of workers, suppliers, state and federal governments.
Now don't go getting surprised by their Royal Commission appearances. They weren't called so their own practises could be examined but because both were more than happy to pay out on a union trying to monitor their activities.
Evidence revealed that the pair had significant lists of company scalps under their belts. Sanna was well on his way to double figures but he was pipped because of the real life story testified to by one of Lombardo's victims.
Indian immigrant, Mohammad Ali, started his Australian working life with job experience at Ricon Constructions, one of the entities in which Lombardo was a director. He graduated to full time work as an estimator and was made up when, in 1996, Lombardo and a fellow director asked him to take a directorship.
It is worth noting, at this point, that Lombardo conceded he was barred from being