Enough is enough: Patrick escalates docks dispute with MUA

Company says bid to terminate EBA is designed to end the union’s ‘insidious jobs for the boys stance’.

Patrick says terminating the enterprise agreement will allow the recruit­ment of extra employees without the need for the union’s approval. Picture: Monique Harmer

Patrick Terminals has dramatically escalated its industrial dispute with the maritime union, seeking to wind back employee conditions and reduce the union’s influence over the hiring of workers by applying to terminate their enterprise agreement.

Declaring “enough is enough” after months of failed talks and industrial action, Patrick said termination would allow the recruit­ment of extra employees without the need for the union’s approval, the scrapping of minimum manning levels, employer-friendly changes to redundancy provisions and the ditching of the union’s preferred income protection scheme.

If Fair Work granted its application, Patrick said it would only guarantee not to change leave entitlements, salaries and other rates of pay in the agreement for six months.

After that time, it would seek to revert pay and conditions back to legal minimums in the stevedoring award if a new agreement was not reached with the union.

The union’s national secretary, Paddy Crumlin, said the application showed Patrick’s “contempt” for its employees and was another example of senior management’s “corporate arrogance and hubris” that had prevented resolution of the dispute.

Michael Jovicic. Picture: Bianca De Marchi

Patrick Terminals chief executive Michael Jovicic said the company had been negotiating for a new agreement since February but the union had rejected its offer and escalated industrial action. Hundreds of wharfies at Patrick terminals have threatened a new round of rolling 12-hour strikes in Melbourne and a 24-hour strike in Sydney on Melbourne Cup day, causing further delivery delays in the lead-up to Christmas.

The company said a stumbling block in getting agreement was the union’s proposal that new hires come from employees’ “family and friends” and a union list of names. “The world has changed, and we need to be able to recruit and promote the best people for the job rather than be hamstrung by antiquated union-led processes and policies that restrict our business,” Mr Jovicic said.

“Our market share and business operations have suffered due to this relentless industrial campaign by the MUA and their insidious ‘jobs for the boys’ stance. We need to provide our customers with operational certainty and that includes a workable agreement with our employees. Our customers are demanding that we take action to resolve this situation.”

He said the company had made an attractive national offer, including a 10 per cent pay increase across four years and protections addressing concerns over the use of casuals and job security. “Negotiations have been ongoing for close to two years and frankly there seems to be no agreement to be had, particularly in Sydney, where the union is still demanding we hire from a selected list of family and friends,” he said.

Paddy Crumlin. Picture: AAP

In its application, Patrick says keeping pay and leave entitlements in place for six months was intended to ensure employees “not suffer any immediate financial detriment” if the agreement was terminated. It said termination would allow the company to implement measures currently prohibited, including recruiting extra employees without the union’s agreement.

Patrick would be able to make roster changes and determine the composition of the workforce to best meet operational requirements, following consultation but without the need for agreement with the union.

Patrick said termination would avoid significant accumulation of hours that have been paid for in the annual salaries provided to employees, but not worked by them.

Employees would be obliged to work any accumulated unworked hours paid for.

Mr Crumlin said Patrick employees were all hard-working, proud workers who delivered for the business without complaint during the pandemic. “This attack in the Fair Work Commission amounts to bullying and intimidation. It is being done in such a way as to try to defame the workforce in a most disgraceful fashion by distorting public perceptions of a legally sanctioned bargaining process,” he said. “The disagreements between the two parties are easily resolved and have been achieved within the industry with other stevedoring companies without them resorting to this type of character assassination.

“To seek to undermine the negotiations in this way at this critical time degrades the legitimate rights and needs of workers and their families.”