File spoon-archives/marxism-news.archive/marxism-news_1998/marxism-news.9804, message 20


Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Condit <tomcondit-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: M-NEWS: War on Wharfies: 9 April


>War on the Wharfies Homepage update for 9 April:
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/Takver/soapbox/index.htm
>
>MESSAGE CONTENTS
>* (9/4/98 - 6pm) Wharfies mass sackings to be challenged in court
>* (9/4/98 - 6pm) More Scabs on the waterfont
>* (9/4/98 - 6pm) Statistics, damn statistics and Peter Reith
>* (9/4/98 - 6pm) Corrigan dismisses South Australian Manager
>* (9/4/98 - 6pm) San Fransisco Protest
>* (9/4/98 - MN) Scabs unloading MSC Singapore in Fremantle
>* (9/4/98 - MN) A comment on Corrigan's money manipulations
>
>News Summary - Thursday 9 April
>
>Wharfies mass sackings to be challenged in court
>The Financial Review has reported that senior industrial lawyers believe
>the case is strong that Chris Corrigan and Patrick has breached the law,
>with the Government's active support, by victimising stevedoring workers
>and "injuring them in their employment" because of their union
>membership and activity. The union is arguing that six months ago a
>labour hire agreement had been entered into with the National Farmers
>Federation, to be implemented once Patricks' workforce was dismissed.
>The manipulation of the circumstances was a conspiracy against the union
>and his employees.
>Corrigan continues to maintain that he has not sacked anyone. He has
>simply refused to maintain financial support for these companies,
>despite having extracted like a leech $68.1 million from these companies
>last September, and possibly further asset stripping since then.
>Maritime Union Secretary described Chis Corrigan's movement of assets
>from the employing companies upstream to Lang Corporation as "a
>Christopher Skase style of operation". The orders to invade the wharves
>with security guards and attack dogs in a military style action also
>would contradict that Corrigan had not sacked anyone. Many of the
>security guards told workers at work - "Your Sacked" before physically
>escorting them to the terminal gates. A court or tribunal could very
>well find Corrigan's tactic was contrived and is in effect an attempt to
>dismiss an entire workforce.
>
>Under the Workplace Relations Act freedom of association provisions
>employers are prevented from dismissing an employee, injuring an
>employee in his or her employment or altering the position of an
>employee to their detriment for prohibited reasons, including union
>membership, refusal to make or consent to an enterprise agreement to
>which the employee's union would be party, or because the worker is
>entitled to benefits under an industrial instrument, such as an award.
>
>An employer is not allowed to dismiss a worker for engaging in lawful
>industrial action under the Act's enterprise bargaining provisions. The
>onus is on the employer to prove that it has not breached these laws.
>Such a breach need not be a major factor in the dismissal, it could be
>quite minor, to make it illegal.
>
>Peter Reith, on the ABC 7.30 Report, stated that the government had top
>legal teams on standbye in Australia and in Britain to counter any
>threat from the International Transport Federation, or secondary
>boycotts within Australia. The government has an open cheque book policy
>for its legal costs - "to spend any amount necessary." The Labor
>Opposition spokesman has condemned this open cheque book policy on legal
>costs, when education, health issues, and unemployment are such pressing
>issues of concern to all Australians.
>
>Meanwhile, The maritme union's lawyers are drawing up writs against
>Corrigan, Patrick, Donald McGauchie for the NFF, and Peter Reith. Peter
>Reith's active incitement of Patrick and Corrigan, it will be argued,
>has breached the contract of employment and his own Workplace Relations
>Act. Lawyers for the MUA and the ACTU are also seeking contempt chages
>for the loading of a vessel in Fremantle while an injunction is in
>place. The union could also have a case to argue on common law grounds.
>
>The Chanticleer column in the Financial Review has advice that "there is
>enough in the common law on this issue for the MUA to tie Lang up in the
>courts, all the way to the High Court, for years." As Chris Corrigan has
>said - this is a strike of capital. The difference is Corrigan isn't
>moving his capital to another location - it is a discriminatory strike
>of capital, imposed on workers who are members of a union.
>
>
>
>More Scabs on the waterfont
>11.00am 9/4/98. About 24 scabs have been ferried by launch to the Port
>Botany terminal in Sydney. It appears they are being shown the layout of
>the site. There arte plans to bring non-union workers to Port Kembla,
>near Woollongong today.
>1.00pm 9/4/98. At Hamilton Wharf in Brisbane scabs were ferried in to
>the wharf where they started moving some refrigerated perishable
>containers. After a short time work stopped and the containers were
>removed for storage.
>
>Non union workers are expected to be shown onto the wharves throughout
>Australia over the next few days.
>
>(Source: ABC Radio 9 April)
>
>Statistics, damn statistics and Peter Reith
>Andy Andrews, the head of SeaLand, has blasted Peter Reith for his
>derogatory comments made against SeaLand on the ABC 7.30 report. SeaLand
>runs a container terminal in Adelaide, South Australia. Peter Reith
>dismissed SeaLand's productivity as "not such a big deal." Andy Andrews
>decried the much vaunted statistics being peddled by Reith and Corrigan
>as seldom giving an accurate report of the work involved in container
>movements.
>On two ships recently in Adelaide he described how container movements
>on one were 16 per hour, and on an adjacent ship were 28 an hour,
>definitely close to world's best practice. However, average container
>movements tend to distort the effort reguired. A poor statistic for a
>ship may result from the way the containers are presented, and the way
>they are stowed on a ship. When he contacted a shipping company to try
>and resolve some of the problems - to reform container stowage to
>improve container movement rate, he was told that "Adelaide stowage was
>an afterthought." This claim has been made before - that because of
>Australia's trade volume and geographical position, the logistics of
>accessing containers will fluctuate wildly from ship to ship.
>
>Any statistician will advise that averages are always deceptive. A bit
>like a river in flood, where 95% of the width may only be ankle deep and
>slow flowing, while the 5% remaining is treacherously deep and fast
>flowing. Based on average depth and speed the river appears safe to
>cross. The average figures which Corrigan and Reith have been peddling
>do not tell the true story. To do that, you need to understand the work
>effort involved in the stowage and movement of containers perculiar to
>our own geographical position. I doubt Reith or Corrigan have found the
>time to get their hands dirty and understand the logistics involved
>which wharfies face every day.
>
>
>
>Corrigan dismisses South Australian Manager
>1.00pm 9/4/98. Michael Bennett, the South Australian Manager of Patrick,
>and Terry McKinnon, a senior supervisor, have been dismissed. It is
>thought the dismissal is because they refused to follow a head office
>directive to sack Patrick's Adelaide employees, and were instantly
>dismissed themselves. Patrick has appointed an ex P&O employee to take
>over as South Australian Manager. It has announced that all present and
>future shipments will be contracted out to P&O Ports in Adelaide.
>While Corrigan has expressed some remorse for the sacking of workers at
>productive regional wharves, his actions speak far louder. In an act of
>ruthless corporate bastardry his mass dismissals have discriminated
>against people who have done nothing except belong to a union. Even some
>of his managers see his action as grossly discriminatory, and have acted
>in the interests of their fellow employees.
>
>ABC Radio 9/4/98)
>
>San Fransisco Protest
>2.00pm 9/4/98 In San Fransisco unionists in the International
>Longshoreman's Union protested to consular officials in the Australian
>Consulate, then blockaded the consulate building. It was reported that
>police were called and several people were arrested.
>Japan's waterfont unions have expressed solidarity with the Maritime
>Union of Australia. An Industrial dispute is presently occurring on the
>Japanese waterfront.
>
>ABC Radio 9/4/98)
>
>Scabs unloading MSC Singapore in Fremantle
>Scabs from P&C Stevedores are unloading containers at Fremantle, in
>contravention of a Federal Court injunction. Under the injunction, the
>administrators appointed by Patrick must not dismiss any employees, must
>not divulge any assets, and must not employ any others to do stevedoring
>work.
>(Source: ABC 8 April)
>
>A comment on Corrigan's money manipulations
>Corrigan has setup the situation whereby the companies employing staff
>are cash starved. This is as a result of moving $68.1 million out of
>these companies in September 1997 (Are wharfies about to be swindled out
>of millions?), just as the Dubai debacle was being organised. This was
>done purposefully (see More on Patrick swindling wharfies) for just the
>present instance.
>The legality and propriety of this transfer should be questioned. It
>smells of conspiracy - part of the conspiracy that has been hatching for
>at least the last 6 months. Corrigan has done the dirty on all the
>employees in the Patrick group of companies - some 2,100 staff (of which
>only 1,400 are wharfies). The companies which employed people have all
>been put into liquidation, while the parent company, Lang Corporation
>absolves itself of all responsibility, and Lang Shares jump in value.
>Corrigan has setup other companies to handle the wharf assets and the
>contracting out of services, including the sourcing of scab labour from
>P&C Stevedores.
>
>The callousness of Corrigan is obvious, and his business ethics must be
>severely questioned. Reith talks of waterfront reform, while Corrigan
>cannot even manage Patricks efficiently. Sea-land general manager Andy
>Andrews recently accused Patrick of blaming the union as a smokescreen
>for Patricks' own poor management. This corroborates statements of
>former Patrick line manager, Alan Knight. Corrigan stands accused of
>betrayal and poor management by his own employees and peers.
>
>(Takver 9 April)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>War on the Wharfies is an independent web page which contains:
>* News reports on the Maritime Union of Australia fight against
>  the rightwing attack by the National Farmers Federation,
>  waterfront bosses, and federal and state governments.
>* News on other union actions and progressive campaigns, or the
>  general attack on workers rights or conditions
>
>Takver-AT-onaustralia.com.au
>War on the Wharfies Homepage:
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/Takver/soapbox/index.htm
>
>
>
> oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo
>             LEFTLINK - Victoria's Broad Left Mailing List
>                http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/
>          Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
>
>        Publication of a message on this list does not indicate
>   endorsement by either LEFTLINK or the New International Bookshop.
> oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo
>
>




*****
"Messages sent on the IWW-news mailing list are the opinions of the
individual senders; they do not necessarily represent the views of the IWW.
IWW-news is for posting information which is relevant to the struggle of
the working class against our bosses. Visit http://www.iww.org/ for more
information."
To subscribe/unsubscribe from the IWW-news mailing list please send e-mail
to iww-news-request-AT-iww.org with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" as
the subject of the message.




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005