Since the 1993 Industrial Relations Reform Act however, individual states could no longer ignore the Federal framework completely even though under the Australian Constitution state governments are entitled to pass their own legislation regarding the way industrial relations are conducted in their state. Most states are now introducing legislation which mirrors that of the Federal government's reform initiatives (Keenoy and Kelly, 1998).
As the primary economic manager, governments are responsible for managing the economic environment.
Inflation, mass unemployment and other economic sicknesses produce suffering, insecurity and social tensions (Deery and Plowman, 1988). An economy not well managed intensifies the effects on industrial relations and in particular makes the inequalities of a system based on private ownership more apparent. According to Deery and Plowman (1988, p110) the "actions of government are decisive in determining the level of economic activity, the levels of inequity and the intensity of attempts to redress the social imbalance". For example, government policies on interest rates, investment allowances and import controls can directly influence innovation in industries dependant upon such policies.
In essence because of the amount of regulation that now occurs in relation to economic and social life (and in such detail), governments cannot avoid taking a direct responsibility for the nature of the environment in which industrial relations are conducted (Deery and Plowman, 1988).
Invariably all governments, no matter what they are advancing (or defending), claim to be doing so with the public or national interest in mind (Keenoy and Kelly, 1998). By using these terms, governments present themselves as being neutral, balancing the demands of each of the vested interest groups in society. In reality however, it is difficult to envisage a national interest which is above the differential interests of individuals and groups in societies.
The fourth role of government is that of model employer.
Government is the largest employer in Australia which as a direct consequence gives it substantial influence over the social and economic environment (Berrell, 1999). How it treats its own workers sends a strong signal to private employers. It is a leader in some aspects of employment conditions, such as the introduction of flextime, Equal Employment Opportunity and Occupational Health and Safety. Similarly through its employment practices the government can choose to give the impression of fairness and equity or it can reinforce class divisions by limiting its recruitment activities to people of a particular social or educational background (Deery and Plowman, 1988).
As can be seen, the roles of government are complex and entwined, however it is through these roles that government influences and controls the employment relationship in Australia.
There is no doubt that the government is a major player in Australian Industrial Relations as a direct consequence of the roles it plays as rule maker, keeper of the public interest, manager of the economy and employer. However it is important to note that governments are not neutral in any system of industrial relations (Deery and Plowman, 1988) and that the approach of government to industrial relations, moreover, is influenced by the political philosophy of the party in power (Stone, 1995).
Australian Trade Unions consist of a large and diverse range of organisations. They differ not only in their objectives, but in their interests and activities. They often hold conflicting political ideologies, pursue varying industrial tactics and serve different interests and roles (Deery and Plowman, 1991).
In the view of the general public, they are the most influential group in Australian society today, ahead of the Federal Government, the media and multi-national companies (Dufty and Fells, 1989 p 40).
Trade unions have existed for well over 150 years in Australia and during this time have been successful in gaining significant improvements for their members, particularly with respect to wages and working conditions.
The origins of trade unions in Australia go back as early as the 1800's, but it wasn't until the 1870's when unions were finally legalised despite the efforts of the State and employers who up until then, had sought to eliminate them. The massive strikes of the 1890's were mainly over employers right of freedom of contract. The employers aided by a bountiful supply of unemployed "scab" labour and a sympathetic government, had forced the unions into total submission and effectively destroyed their capacity to bargain effectively (Deery and Plowman, 1991).
The early forms of union control over the employment relationship can be seen through the development of craft unions. The distinguishing feature of such unions were that they sought to control wage-prices by restricting the supply of qualified labour available to the employer (Keenoy and Kelly, 1998). According to Keenoy and Kelly (1998), this strategy was dependent upon the members being able to exercise exclusive control over particular categories of work to ensure the union controls entry into the trade. For example they would restrict the number of apprentices taken on, take responsibility for their training and prevent anyone other than those properly qualified from being employed.
Another form of union strategy was that of inclusive control. This strategy was based on the belief that once everyone had joined the relevant union, membership solidarity would prevent employers exploiting the weakness of individual employees. This of course has proved extremely difficult to achieve with any real consistency (Keenoy and Kelly, 1998)
The "closed shop" strategy is very closely aligned that of the craft principle and is one of the more common strategies often sought by modern trade unionism. Only workers certified by the union as properly qualified can gain employment as a skilled worker. As the union controls the training regime, it effectively controls entry into the trade. Employees must pay union dues and abide by union decisions as loss of membership can result in dismissal (Keenoy and Kelly, 1998). Employers on the other hand face a well organised work-force and as a result cannot easily disregard the terms and conditions of employment otherwise they may face the consequence of an industrial dispute.
Unions employ a variety of techniques to achieve their goals. They may choose to go through the process of conciliation and arbitration, direct negotiations, apply industrial pressure through strike action or other political means, dependent upon the circumstance they face (Deery and Plowman, 1991). Unions will tend to exploit fully whatever power or influence they have in their possession, whether it is industrial or political.
At the enterprise level, workplace negotiations concerning the ongoing employment relationship centre around three main "actors". These are the employer, the employee and the employee's union. This relationship is inherently conflictual, for on one hand you have an employer whose objectives are to maximise the profits of the organisation by improving productivity and reducing costs whilst on the other you have the employees whose objectives are to maximise their return for the labour they provide. The unions primary role in this relationship is to improve the well-being of its members" (Deery and Plowman, 1991, pg 259). They do this by providing a collective representative voice to management concerning improvements to such issues as wages and working conditions.
Fells (1989) argues that a 'frontier of control' exists between an employer and employee which is born out of the legal, social and economic pressures effecting the distribution of power within the employment relationship. "It represents the point of confrontation and interaction between the structure of management control and the challenge from organised labour" (Storey, 1980 p 12). Unions generally seek to move this frontier of control more towards their members which in effect also helps realise the unions own ideals and objectives.
In the general public's mind there is little doubt at to who controls the employment relationship. Whenever conflict occurs and strikes result, the media usually portrays the union as the instigator of the conflict, which in fact may not be the case at all. Dufty and Kells (1989) believe that public antipathy toward unions is more on the basis of the abuse of power, not of its use to further legitimate aims of workers by legitimate means.
Unfortunately, unions are ill equipped to effectively pursue the struggle over interests as their political influence has been transient and unstable, their financial resources are trivial and they are entirely dependent upon the membership taking and sustaining industrial action (Keenoy and Kelly, 1998). Even total union solidarity may not be enough to protect employees as was evidenced in the great strikes of the 1890's.
As a result of the continued emphasis towards enterprise bargaining at the enterprise level and falling union membership, trade unions have seen their relevance and control over the employment relationship diminish quite significantly. According to Costa and Duffy (1990) the greatest obstacle facing the union movement in increasing its relevance today, is its inability to overcome the limitations of the culture it has developed over many years. This will need to be addressed if unions are to survive and prosper.
The early strength of the union movement and the nature of the arbitration system encouraged the development of employer associations and led to them placing an emphasis on industrial relations activities. The early opposition of Australian employers to recognising the principles of collective bargaining has given way to a begrudging acceptance of unions as a legitimate actor in the employment relationship (Walker, 1970).
In contrast to the national unity of trade unions, national employer representation is fragmented with groups tending to represent their particular industry or sector. Over the period 1890 to 1980 five different structures have attempted to present a united employer opposition to trade unions namely ; the mutual defence model, the federation model, alliance model, secretariat model and the confederation model (Gardner and Palmer, 1997).
The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has enabled great changes in the way the employment relationship is managed. The current Liberal Government has set a path for the future by decreeing that individual bargaining is preferable, through the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements with collective bargaining at the enterprise level next in order of preference only if individual agreements are not possible (Kennoy and Kelly, 1998). The emphasis on individual agreements is certain to be the future path for the employment relationship.
Bibliography
Berrell, M. 1999, Subject Book: Industrial Relations, Monash Distance Education Centre, Monash University, Churchill, Vic.
Deery, S.J. and Plowman, D.H. 1988, Australian Industrial Relations, 2nd edition, McGraw Hill Book Co., Sydney, pp.107-124
Deery, S.J. and Plowman, D.H. 1991, Australian Industrial Relations, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill Book Company, Sydney
Dufty, N.F and Fells, R.E, 1989, Dynamics of Industrial Relations in Australia, Prentice Hall of Australia, Harboard
Fells, R.E., 1989, "The Employment Relationship Control and Strategic Choice in the Study of Industrial Relations" in Labour and Industry, Vol.2(3), October pp 470-492
Gardner, M. and Palmer, G. 1997, Employment Relations, Macmillian Education Aust. Pty Ltd, South Melbourne
Gough, R. 1997, Australian Employee Relations in 1996: Change and Continuity
Hyman, R and Fryer, R.H, 1977, "Trade Unions: Sociology and political economy" in T. Clark and L. Clements, Trade Unions Under Capitalism, Fortana, Glasgow.
Keenoy, T. and Kelley, D. 1998, The Employment Relationship in Australia, Harcourt Brace and Company, Marrickville.
Patmore, G. 1992, "The future of trade unionism - an Australian perspective" in The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.3, September pp. 225-245
Stone, R, 1995, Human Resource Management, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, Brisbane
Storey, J. 1980, The Challenge to Management Control, London, Kogan Page
Sutcliffe, P. and Callus, R. 1994, Glossary of Australian Industrial Relations Terms, Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Teaching, University of Sydney and Australian Centre in Strategic Management, Queensland University of Technology
