Industrial Dispute Essay: Oaky Creek Coal Mine Vs. CFMEU

The nature of the industrial disputes between Oaky Creek Coal Pty limited and the CFMEU

Discuss about the Industrial Dispute Report Between Oaky Creek Coal Mine and CFMEU.

Industrial disputes have become common in the modern working environments. The prevalence of industrial cases in the global market has increased and hence increasing concerns about the effectiveness of fair and work commission in handling the disputes (Wright & Lansbury, 2014). According to the Australian Industrial dispute Act, 1947, industrial disputes have been defined as a difference or disagreement between employers and employers, employer and workers, workers with fellow workers. Industrial arguments can also be the current disagreements between employers and employee representatives which in this case refer to the trade unions. Most industrial disputes arise overpay or even over the working conditions and can result in industrial actions. The Fair work commission is an Australian Tribunal that deals with work relations (McCrystal, 2014). CFMEU is the Australian leading trade union in construction, Maritime, mining, forestry, energy, clothing, and textile as well as footwear production. The union has been facing several legal actions from the commission about industrial disputes (De Prins et al., 2018). For instance, in the year 2014 according to the Sydney Morning Gerald Newspaper, the union and some officials from the union were charged or fined by the Federal Court of Australia $590 800 after legal actions was taken by the commission. The behavior of the union and its officials in relation to work relations was questioned and found to be centrally to the regulations of the Fair Work Act.

The nature of 2017 and 2018 industrial dispute between Oaky Creek Coal Pty limited and the CFMEU

Oaky Creek Coal Pty Limited is a coal mining company that was established in the year 1982 and experienced its primary saleable coal production in the year 1983. The company is based in Central Queensland in Australia and produces two premium quality as well as medium volatile cooking gas. It works under the umbrella of the Glencore Group which is one of the largest diversified global natural resource companies and is also a major producer as well as marketer of more than 90 commodities. The company has an annual production of 15.9 million tonnes run of mine coal. Since the year 2017, the company has engaged in several industrial disputes with the construction, Forestry, Mining, and Energy Union (Eklund, 2015). The discussion started with a statement that was made by the CFMEU national secretary Michael O’Connor in a meeting with Oaky North employees where he was quoted saying that the CFMEU officials were there because they had a broken IR system as well as unfavorable laws which stacked against them and therefore they had to do something like the union officials (Pekarek & Gahan, 2016). He further said that this was their appropriate time to take action and that the North Oaky employees were leading in their work. According to Glencore Group, such statement expressed a form of attack to the Oaky North employees and company at large.

Glencore disputing arguments

On 10th of January 2018, in a meeting with the deputy president of the Fair Work Commission, the CFMEU officials had shaken hands with the Oaky Creek Coal limited representatives on a new enterprise agreement developed about the Fair Work Act (Lewin & Gollan, 2018). The deputy president Asbury also recommended that all the parties should support the proposed new enterprise agreement. The new proposed enterprise agreement for the Oaky North was fair and reasonable. According to the enterprise agreement;

• It protected the rights of the work as outlined in the Fair Work Act
• The deal also maintained an annual wage of approximately $ 1 180 000 per annum
• It also proposed a wage increment of 8.24% over four years of employment
• The agreement also took care of housing consideration by maintaining an accumulated rent at $ 15.50 per week for 2 to 4 bedroom houses as well as $ 24.00 per week for the single rooms per person all inclusive of meals and service charges.

According to Glencore, the CFMEU members at the North Oaky walked away from the handshake deal and a return to work by voting against the agreement. It is the CFMEU members at the Oaky North who are holding industrial actions and been supported by the CFMEU officials. After walking away from the handshake, the CFMEU officials have continued to accept public donations for members working with the Oaky North Creek Coal Company who receive $ 1600 per week from the union (Sarkar, 2017). They also collect approximately $ 300 per week in coal bonuses from the company for work done by the abused members who travel to and from work. The dispute, therefore, did arise from the failure to deliver on their prior handshake about the new proposed enterprise agreement and the continued efforts of CFMEU officials to pay their member to maintain the Oaky North Picket Line. By going against the provided regulations under the Enterprise Agreement made the Oaky North Creek Coal Mine Company feel that the union officials were not supporting the agreement but were pushing for their own interests and under the provision given by targeting the Company employees.

On the other hand, CFMEU argues that Glencore is attempting to pressure the Oaky North contractors as well as the workers to perform the work of the employees who are taking part in the industrial, legal actions. In support of the CFMEU official’s argument, the deputy president of the Fair work Commission added that he received direct complaints from employees who had been engaged by contractor HD mining claiming to have been threatened with termination of employment (Elgar & Simpson, 2017). The deputy president of the commission has provided that the Glencore threatening behavior is unacceptable and that the company should take a look at their way of treating workers. The ongoing aggressive behavior by Glencore and contracting companies according to the CFMEU officials is termed as a deplorable situation and provides that if the action continues then they will be forced to look at the available options with the aim of holding the contacting companies as well as Glencore into account (Watson, 2017). Despite the ongoing industrial actions the union maintains that workers should not be threatened for not performing duties which are supposed to be done by the workers who are fighting for their rights through industrial actions (Preston, 2017). They argue that it is high time that the company agrees to provide their workers with the necessary conditions and entitlement which are being sought by the union.

CFMEU disputing arguments

The CFMEU officials argue that the prior enterprise agreement provides an opportunity for remuneration review based on business performance and the existing market conditions. Such a provision provides the employees with a chance for wage review (Forsyth et al., 2017). Therefore the union has proposed an increase in the weekly charges to $ 30 for the duplex houses and $ 48 for accommodation for single persons. This is contrary to the initial enterprise agreement that the company considers to be favorably provided for a weekly rent of $ 15.50 for the duplex houses and $ 24.00 for the single person’s accommodation.

The union officials have also proposed that employees should receive $ 5700 annually with a minimum payment requirement of 6 weeks or $ 11,400 for any other period of service to the company. This was contrary to the previous agreement which provided a wage increase of 8.24% over four years. Finally, the CFMEU officials also proposed that the employees are legible to receive up to $ 8000 for reimbursement and relocation expenses (Preston, 2018). However, under their new proposal, there is no material change to the new enterprise agreement.

From the above proposed new enterprise deal, the company argues that the CFMEU officials are taking advantage of the nature of the enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Agreement. The officials aim to have a dig at the company and affect their performance and not to support the prior established handshake between the company and the CFMEU officials in front of the Fair and Work Commission deputy president (Borland, 2017). It is, therefore, the responsibility of the commission to help in settling the disputes since no party to the conflict is willing to reach an agreement by engaging the disputing parties, analyzing the issues of conflict and providing a solution by taking a decision or using its powers to make an order.

The fair work commission is an established tribunal that has been developed to maintain workplace relations. It acts as an independent body and has the power to carry our various functions about industrial disputes. The commission is mandated to provide safety of minimum conditions in the workplace including wages and salaries (Oliver & Yu, 2017). In bargaining circumstances, the commission is required to facilitate a good faith and develop an enterprise agreement. It administers regulation services for industrial actions and also deals with any employee complaints about unfair dismissal. Finally, the tribunal is mandated with the task of resolving a range of collective as well as individual disputes through the mediation process and also through a public tribunal hearing.

Proposed enterprise agreement by CFMEU officials

The prior statements from the deputy vice president of the commission despite recommending the parties to support the enterprise agreement were not fair. In a way, they were helping the arguments of the CFMEU officials by making a supportive statement that he has received individual complaints from employees who had been engaged by HD Contracting Company to have received threats of termination of their employment contract (Power, 2017). The role of the commission is to act as an independent body, and therefore it was not appropriate for the deputy president to alter such statements despite the relevance as they were used to increase the magnitude of the industrial actions despite the ongoing dispute resolution mechanisms.

However, the commission was able to make a ruling on the ongoing industrial actions and dispute between these two parties which had become more prolonged, and there was a need to restore the mining activities at the Oaky North Coal mines (White, 2017). The commission played a significant role in engaging both parties in a bid to resolve the differences. The commission gave an order which required the suspension of the lockout for a period starting from March 2018 to provide an opportunity for the employees to vote on a new enterprise agreement (Bray & Power, 2017).  Such a decision by the commission was beneficial in that it acted in good faith and played its role as an independent party in the dispute and also gave the responsibility of making the right decision to the most affected group by the industrial actions in this case the Oaky North Coal Mine employees.

After giving the order by the commission, the employees had the opportunity to vote for the proposed new enterprise agreement. The results of the voting by the workers of Oaky North Coal mine were in favor of the latest enterprise agreement offered by their employer, Glencore (Bryan et al., 2017). Such a decision was welcomed by all parties including the CFMEU officials and the Australian leadership led by Michelle Landry who congratulated both parties for coming into an agreement as well as appreciating the role played by the Fair Work Commission in resolving the conflict.

The decision or order by the commission was therefore useful in providing a solution for the industrial dispute that started back in 2017 and had a significant impact on the operational and production activities of the company. The commission acted independently without hanging or being bias to one party to provide a solution that was best for the parties despite favoring the company (Smith, 2017). The commission decision or order showed the ability of the commission to use its powers in arriving at a conclusive decision on matters relating to workplace relations.

The role of Fair Work Commission in handling industrial disputes

The Fair Work commission should have higher powers to make decisions on such disputes. In this case, the commission was able to involve the parties and allows the employees to make the best choice. The commission, therefore, acted as a third party to the dispute resolution process.

With more significant powers, the company should have dealt with dispute without having to prolong the discussions with the parties which had a significant impact on mining operations (Allen & Landau, 2018). Since the commissioners were present during the handshake between the CFMEU officials and the Company representatives on the newly developed enterprise agreement, the commission should have used the provisions of the contract as binding and identify the party which was not complying to the handshake which in this case was the CFMEU officials.

Conclusion

Industrial disputes are widespread in the modern corporate world and have contributed to increased industrial actions. Industrial actions contributed to reduced business operations and performance and also affect the employee’s productivity. CFMEU is the Australian leading trade union in construction, Maritime, mining, forestry, energy, clothing, and textile as well as footwear production. The union has been facing several legal actions from the commission about industrial disputes. The establishment of the Fair Work Commission in every country plays a significant role in helping to resolve industrial actions and provide practical solutions to workplace relations. However, there is need to give the commission greater powers to enable them to determine and make decisions even for the most sensitive or critical issues of conflict between employers and the employee's trade union.

References

Allen, D., & Landau, I. (2018). Major court and tribunal decisions in Australia in 2017. Journal of Industrial Relations, 0022185618759746.

Borland, J. (2017). Overview of research to inform the Annual Wage Review 2016-17.

Bray, A., & Power, C. (2017). The fair work commission's' new approach'. Precedent (Sydney, NSW), (141), 27.

Bryan, D., Rafferty, M., Toner, P., & Wright, S. (2017). Financialisation and labour in the Australian commercial construction industry. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28(4), 500-518.

De Prins, P., Stuer, D., & Gielens, T. (2018). Revitalizing social dialogue in the workplace: the impact of a cooperative industrial relations climate and sustainable HR practices on reducing employee harm. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-21.

Eklund, E. (2015). Mining in Australia: An historical survey of industry–community relationships. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2(1), 177-188.

Elgar, J., & Simpson, B. (2017). The impact of the law on industrial disputes revisited: A perspective on developments over the last two decades. Industrial Law Journal, 46(1), 6-22.

Forsyth, A., Howe, J., Gahan, P., & Landau, I. (2017). Establishing the Right to Bargain Collectively in Australia and the UK: Are Majority Support Determinations under Australia’s Fair Work Act a More Effective Form of Union Recognition? Industrial Law Journal, 46(3), 335-365.

Lewin, D., & Gollan, P. J. (Eds.). (2018). Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, 2017: Shifts in Workplace Voice, Justice, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution in Contemporary Workplaces. Emerald Publishing Limited.

McCrystal, S. (2014). Industrial legislation in Australia in 2013. Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(3), 331-344.

Oliver, D., & Yu, S. (2017). The Australian labour market in 2016. Journal of Industrial Relations, 59(3), 254-270.

Pekarek, A., & Gahan, P. (2016). Unions and collective bargaining in Australia in 2015. Journal of Industrial Relations, 58(3), 356-371.

Power, C. (2017). The Fair Work Commission's new approach. Governance Directions, 69(9), 540.

Preston, A. (2017). Submission to the Government of Western Australia Ministerial Review of the State Industrial Relations System.

Preston, A. (2018). The structure and determinants of wage relativities: evidence from Australia. Routledge.

Sarkar, S. (2017). Changing Judicial Pronouncements on Impugned Discharge & Dismissal under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(2), 201.

Smith, K. (2017). Oaky north miners locked out. Green Left Weekly, (1149), 4.

Watson, K. (2017). Queensland's industrial relations act 2016: Is there really anything new?. Proctor, The, 37(4), 16.

White, M. (2017). Civil penalties no deterrence in industrial litigation. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (33), 71.

Wright, C. F., & Lansbury, R. D. (2014). Trade unions and economic reform in Australia, 1983–2013. The Singapore Economic Review, 59(04), 1450033.