Supply strikes to cripple us: mining and energy employers

Mining and energy employers want unions subject to a new public interest test before they can legally strike across companies.

The ACTU says unions are focused on the discussions between stakeholders and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations that kicked off after the jobs and skills summit.

Mining and energy employers want unions subject to a new public interest test before they can legally strike across companies, warning Labor’s proposed multi-employer bargaining regime could expose them to crippling industrial action throughout the supply chain.

Australian Resources and Energy Employer Association chief executive Steve Knott has written to ACTU president Michele O’Neil seeking clarity about whether unions would use the new laws to strike across industries and, if so, would unions agree to a new public interest or economic harm test in relation to strikes.

Mr Knott said industry-wide strikes in niche yet critical service sectors would grind multibillion-dollar mega-projects to a halt.

“If cooks and caterers go on strike, the project shuts down,” he said. “If helicopters aren’t running people to offshore platforms, or tugs aren’t bringing bulk carriers in, projects shut down.

“For each day they lay dormant, the damage to state and federal taxes and royalties can easily run into the millions.”

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox has also written to the ACTU about the bargaining changes, and on Sunday expressed disappointment that unions had not set out the specific changes they wanted.

Steve Knott

“In the absence of any meaningful detail from unions, industry is very concerned that what they might be calling for is a system that would give unions greater rights to force employers to be bound by a multi-employer agreement that they have no interest in, and which doesn’t suit their circumstances,” Mr Willox said.

The ACTU acknowledged receiving Mr Knott’s letter but said unions were focused on the discussions between stakeholders and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations that kicked off after the jobs and skills summit.

“We look forward to continued engagement in a process to modernise and update workplace laws to find solutions to the current problems, most importantly the ongoing wages crisis,” an ACTU spokesman said.

Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke said on Sunday that “consultations are ongoing and we want to hear everyone’s views”.

“But we are determined to bring the law up to date and get wages moving, especially in sectors of the economy where women workers have been left behind,” he said.

Mr Knott said legislation enabling industry bargaining should clearly define what sectors were in, and what sectors were out, and AREEA wanted the resources and energy industry excluded.

“There are genuine concerns the ACTU’s proposed IR changes would lead to widespread strikes or threats of strikes across the economy,” he said. “To prevent this from becoming a reality, changes to bargaining laws should be balanced with new tests and protections in relation to strikes.

“As recently highlighted by the Productivity Commission, there should be more functions within the bargaining system to assist disputing parties to reach agreement.

“This could include allowing employers to respond to union applications to organise strikes, with submissions in relation to significant economic or enterprise harm, and the public or national interest. Union applications to organise strikes should also be assessed in the context of the reasonableness of their claims and conduct during bargaining.”

In his letter to Ms O’Neil, Mr Knott says AREEA’s members are opposed to multi-employer and industry bargaining outside low-paid sectors.

“Since the early 1990s agreements reached at the individual enterprise level have been fundamental to underpinning workplace relations and national productivity growth,” he says.

“AREEA members hold concerns that multi-employer and industry bargaining taking place amongst a small cohort of supply chain employers could see nationally significant projects ground to a halt through co-ordinated strike action.”

Mr Willox said the widespread anxiety among business over any expansion of the system of multi-employer bargaining had been well ventilated.

“Despite reservations, major employer associations such as Ai Group are willing to constructively discuss how we improve the bargaining system, in the interests of all parties,” he said. “We have commenced preliminary consultation with the government in good faith.

“Disappointingly, we still haven’t received any detailed explanation from the unions as to precisely what is wrong with the current system or what specific changes they want.”

Mr Willox said the government had identified removing unnecessary limitations to multi-employer bargaining as an item for immediate action following the summit, and Ai Group would welcome any explanation by the unions as to what they view as “unnecessary limitations” in the current system.

“In the absence of any meaningful detail from unions, industry is very concerned that what they might be calling for is a system that would give unions greater rights to force employers to be bound by a multi-employer agreement that they have no interest in, and which doesn’t suit their circumstances,” he said. “At the moment, we have a lot more questions than answers about the union agenda.”

The questions included whether employers would be forced to apply “agreements” they didn’t actually “agree” to, or would it be an “opt in” system; would the Fair Work Commission have an expanded role in “arbitrating” the terms of such “agreements” if the parties can’t reach a deal, and would bargaining across supply chains be permissible.

Mr Willox also asked if the new system would interfere with enterprise bargaining that already occurs in sectors such as manufacturing, mining, transport and logistics, construction and retail.