Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Speech at the third national convention of the industrial relations society of Australia

Download PDFDownload PDF







Every nation has measures of one form or another to regulate in d u s tria l

re la tio n s . Usually these measures have evolved from a combination o f

h is to ric a l and c u ltu ra l factors so that a regulatory framework is established

which is ta ilo re d to the needs o f the in d iv id u a l, in d u s tria l organisations

and the nation. The nature of th is regulation varies a great deal

between countries. However, there are two overall objectives which each

country trie s to meet through it s arrangements fo r the conduct o f

in d u s tria l re la tio n s . The f i r s t is the p u rsu it of equity or ju s tic e and

the second is achieving a.maximum degree o f in d u s tria l s ta b ility .

As in other countries, the Australian in d u s tria l re la tio n s system is a

product o f many factors - h is to ric , c o n s titu io n a l, economic, social and

p o litic a l forces have a ll combined to give us what we have today.

UUnder the C o n stitu tio n, the Federal Parliament was vested w ith the

power to make laws fo r the prevention and settlement o f in te rs ta te

in d u s tria l disputes by means o f c o n c ilia tio n and a rb itra tio n . This

development can be seen as a reaction to the economic d islo catio n and

social distress which were features of the in d u s tria l scene o f the e a rly .

1890s. In a general sense, the development can be seen in terms of, the

need to more closely balance the bargaining positions o f the two major

p a rtie s by encouraging a more highly unionised workforce and providing a

sta tu to ry a lte rn a tiv e to the s trik e weapon as a means o f pursuing improved

wages and conditions. . .

Today, the ch ie f objects of the Act include :

. to promote goodwill in industry; . .

. to encourage the organiation o f representative .

bodies o f employers and employees and th e ir v

re g is tra tio n ; and

. to encourage the democtractic control o f organisations

registered and the f u ll p a rtic ip a tio n by members o f

such an organisation in the a ffa irs o f the organisation.

Perhaps the fundamental basis o f the system's o rig in s is best summed up in the often quoted words of Mr Justice Higgins, th a t eminent Judge of

the Commonwealth Court o f C o n cilia tio n and A rb itra tio n

years when ha said :

. "The process of c o n c ilia tio n w ith a rb itra tio n

in the background, is substituted fo r the

rude and barbarous processes o f s trik e and

lockout. Reason is to displace force; the

might o f the State is to enforce peace between

in d u s tria l combatants; and a ll in the in te re s t

of the p u b lic ." ·


in those e arly

Bearing in mind at a ll times tha t A ustra lia has a Federal system of

Government, and th a t the A ustralian in d u s tria l re la tio n s system contains

a number o f in d u s tria l trib u n a ls - both Federal and State - we are able,

to consider, b r ie fly , the d ire c tio n and strength of. the influences there .

have been on the system.

Under the Federal system the A ustralian C o n cilia tio n and A rb itra tio n

Commission has strong claims to description as the predominant in d u s tria l

trib u n a l in A u stra lia . Where State laws or awards c o n flic t w ith Federal

awards, the la tte r p re v a il. ,

An ABS Survey in 1974 estimated th a t 39.2% of A ustralian employees were

covered by awards o f Federal Tribunals, compared w ith 47.8% covered by

awards o f State Tribunals. However, the real measure o f the influence

o f the Federal Commission lie s in the fa c t th a t, by e ith e r le g is la tio n

or custom, decisions o f the Commission have flowed in to State areas.

This has tr a d itio n a lly been the case w ith national wage judgments, as

they are based on grounds predominantly related to the national economy.

Further, the creation and development o f the federal in d u s tria l ju ris id c tio n

provided encouragement fo r in d u s tria l p a rtie s , p a rtic u la rly unions, to

organise on a national basis. .

In keeping w ith social a ttitu d e s in the A ustralian community, the

in s titu tio n a l approach to in d u s tria l re la tio n s l.ed to the development o f

an "e g a lita ria n " wages and conditions stru ctu re , w ith heavy emphasis on

a comparison o f lik e w ith lik e in the formal award structure and a

d is tin c t preference fo r the d is trib u tio n o f p ro d u c tiv ity gains on a

n a tio n a l, rather than a sectional basis.

The concept o f general wage review based on the a rb itra tio n o f claims

on grounds predominantly related to the national economy was an e arly

development through the Commonwealth Government's "basic wage" approach

and has continued in the form o f national wage cases. At the same time

·' ·â– : ■.=»


th a t i t was decided to adopt a to ta l wage approach in the federal

ju ris d ic tio n , a mininum wage was introduced as a protection fo r low wage

earners. When introduced, th is provision had application to adult

males, but in 1974 the Commission awarded the same minimum wage to adult '

males and females.

Through the years then, a rb itra l decisions which, by convention and

consensus, have general a p p lica tio n , have played an important ro le in

wage determination in A u stra lia . The concept of a National Wage Case

represents an e g a lita ria n approach to wage determination. There is ■

general agreement amongst unions, employers and government th a t National

Wage Cases should continue to be at the core of wage fix a tio n . S ig n ific a n t

disagreement e x is ts , however, as to what are the appropriate c r ite r ia

fo r assessing the level o f general wage adjustment and what should be

the nature and extent o f "ru le s" and "guidelines" surrounding a system

based on regular, national wage review. · *· ■ .

Over the years, the in s titu tio n a l system in A ustralia has not been

without it s c r itic s . The system is by no means perfect - no system

designed to regulate such a complex set of in te r-re la te d facto rs can

claim perfection - but i t has been generally e ffe c tiv e in dealing w ith

the needs o f the p arties. .

I t has often been suggested tha t the available recourse to compulsory

a rb itra tio n , should p rio r agreement not be reached, s ig n ific a n tly

overshadows the c o n c ilia tio n process o f dispute settlement. Where, i t

is argued, is the encouragement to give ground in an attempt to secure

agreement at the c o n c ilia tio n stage when such a concession may prejudice

the outcome o f any eventual a rb itra tio n ? Why waste time w ith prelim inaries?

L e t's get rig h t down to the a rb itra tio n .

The answer lie s not so much in divorcing the two processes, in a formal

or le g is la tiv e sense, but more in an understanding by both sides and the

c o n c ilia to r o f the need to explore the various a lte rn a tive s th a t may be

able to produce agreement fo r settlement o f the dispute.

Another aspect o f th is argument involves the co m p a tib ility of c o lle c tiv e

bargaining w ith a system which provides fo r compulsory a rb itra tio n . A :

process o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining involves resolution o f c o n flic t by

negotiations between unions and employers and involves no inconsistency.

w ith the c o n c ilia tio n processes of the Act. However, i t is a fa c t o f

l i f e th a t bargains made in one area can and do influence wages and ·

conditions in other areas. : .

■V' * -- y *. xS-c*. V


: ■;: · ;■ :

. 4. X

Moreover, the c o lle c tiv e bargaining process can often involve the open

ended use o f in d u s tria l action in p ursuit of claims. In d u stria l re la tio n s

must involve not only the parties concerned, but wider considerations o f

the community. C o lle ctive bargaining can only be f u lly e ffe c tiv e as a

method o f dealing with in d u s tria l disagreement i f a ll the parties d ire c tly

involved are prepared to accept th a t the public in te re s t is a most

important fa c to r.

In A u s tra lia , wages can be adjusted in one o f two ways - by decisions of

in d u s tria l trib u n a ls or by agreement between the p arties. I t is the

in te r-a c tio n o f these two processes which has l^d to problems o f wage

determination and v/age bargains made in one area being extended to other

areas which lack the capacity to affo rd them.

When a bargain between two parties becomes, a springboard fo r demands in

other areas - often completely unrelated - and these demands are met

through the application o f a loose form o f comparative wage ju s tic e ,

then quite damaging economic and in d u s tria l re su lts can fo llo w .

The concept o f comparative wage ju s tic e is e sse n tia lly a product o f the

in s titu tio n a l framework o f wage fix a tio n in A ustra lia . In the e arly to

mid 1970s, the concept operated with considerable force, re su ltin g in

wage increases won in major in d ustrie s being extended fu rth e r and fa ste r

than ever before.

The present wage fix a tio n system severely re s tric ts the application o f

comparative v/age ju s tic e and I would hope tha t the system introduced as

a re s u lt o f the Commission's wage fix a tio n in q u iry continues th a t re s tric tio n .

A centralised system o f wage fix a tio n - a type such as has been in

operation over the la s t three years - provides protection fo r the weaker

sections o f the workforce which may have lacked the power to b en e fit

from extensive c o lle c tiv e bargaining which had prevailed before.

P arties to in d u s tria l re la tio n s in clu ding , I think i t is f a ir to say,

union peak councils, have recognised the damage th a t can be done by

c o lle c tiv e bargaining without re s p o n s ib ility . . .

Has c o n c ilia tio n and a rb itra tio n worn well', or is i t we'll worn? I th in k v

most c e rta in ly the former, but there are s t i l l more challenges and

issues, th a t the system must face.

The most s ig n ific a n t event in your sphere of in te re s t th is year w ill

almost c e rta in ly be the decision o f the Commission in the Wage Fixation

,v-yu > £ > ;· ·*■»·..-..I/··

·· \?

In q u iry. This w ill set the pattern fo r wage fix a tio n in the immediate

fu tu re .

I shouldn't think there would be anyone here who envies the Commission

it s task or who would suggest tha t it s task is easy. I t is not. The

Commission has been presented with some va stly d iffe re n t a lterna tive s as

to the appropriate course fo r wage fix a tio n in the futu re . There are

many differences, including one fundamental issue which has been a

continuing source o f debate over the years. That is , the Commission's

ro le in reconciling it s in d u s tria l re la tio n s re sp o n sib litie s in national

wage cases with the requirement to have regard fo r the lik e ly e ffe cts o f

it s decision on the.national economy. .

I t is· true th a t the two considerations - in d u s tria l and economic -

cannot be e n tire ly separated; there is obviously a degree o f in te ra ctio n

between them. I t is also tru e , though, th a t each consideration may lead

to c o n flic tin g re s u lts . As the Commission noted in one of it s q ua rte rly

. decisions: "Economic chaos is predicted i f we grant the claim, in d u s tria l

chaos is predicted i f we do n o t." . .

I f the two considerations are seen to be in c o n flic t then they must be

assessed and balanced to produce the best possible outcome fo r the

community. .

I believe th a t when the Commission is s ittin g in a National Wage Case,

there is a great awareness in the community th a t the re s u lt can have

s ig n ific a n t im plications fo r the national economy. As the p u b lic 's

representative, the Government has been arguing tha t greater weight

should be placed on the economic consequences of general wage adjustment.

The present economic environment is quite d iffe re n t from the general

post-war experience. In the 50‘ s and 60's in d u s tria l re la tio n s and wage

determination took place in a period of f u ll employment. Today, in the

wake o f the very high wage settlements of 1974 and 1975, and the very

high in fla tio n rates o f the recent past, we have a new problem to

face - an unacceptably high level o f unemployment. I t 'is a problem

which must be faced and it s solution requires a co ntribu tio n from a ll

sections of the community. ■'·

Those who might say tha t greater emphasis in National Wage Cases on

economic factors goes against the Commission's primary function to

prevent and s e ttle disputes must, in my view, reassess th e ir thinking

and accept th a t wages have a v ita l role to play in overall economic

recovery. Wage decisions can be achieved which are consistent w ith

economic, needs and are in keeping with the Commission's in d u s tria l

re la tio n 's re s p o n s ib ilitie s .

The Government has argued before the wage fix a tio n in q u iry fo r the

adoption o f a 'capacity to pay' concept as a prime consideration in

national wage fix a tio n . 'Capacity to pay' relates to that level o f

general wage increase th a t the economy can sustain without general

adverse e ffe c t on in fla tio n , p r o f it ia b ilit y and employment. A wage

increase in excess o f capacity to pay re su lts in price in s ta b ility ,

d istorte d fa c to r shares and higher unemployment. Capacity to pay also

means consideration must be given to adverse consequences fo r future

economic growth o f se ttin g wages at a level which maintains e xistin g

imbalances in an economy instead of re c tify in g them.

The major ground on which those who oppose the importance o f capacity to

pay as a va lid approach in wage fix a tio n is it s d if f ic u lt y to be assessed

in 'hard' quantative terms. ;

I t must always be a matter o f judgment; a matter th a t can only be determined

by c a re fu lly applying experience and knowledge to the best available *.

factual inform ation on a broad range o f economic in d icato rs. To suggest

th a t the crucial importance o f the economy's capacity to a ffo rd wage

increases should be diminished, or even disregarded, because i t is a ‘

matter fo r s k ille d judgment rather than fo r hard and fa s t ca lcu latio n by

some pre-determined formula, is to close one's mind to the economic

problems we face. .

I t is in the nature o f a system which embodies a rb itra tio n as the fin a l

settlement machinery tha t claims made w ill not always be met in f u l l .

I t would be u n re a lis tic to in te rp re t the function o f prevention and

settlement o f disputes as a need to grant a level o f payment th a t w ill

ensure no fu rth e r demands or in d u s tria l action. Settlement o f a dispute

cannot always mean f u l l or sustained concession o f claims.

The p rin cip a l consideration o f a rb itra tio n should not be the a c c e p ta b ility

o f the outcome to the party involved w ith the most strength. To assume

that unless the a rb itra te d decision meets the demands which led to the

dispute are met, ignores the question as to whether the demands were

reasonably or r e a lis tic a lly held in the. f i r s t place. . .

Aside from "the broader issues.of. wage determination, there are other

matters o f importance which we must think about in the fu tu re .


,. . . . I

One important, and to p ic a l, issue is tha t of technological change and

it s impact on the workforce. I t is not a new issue - in recent years

the w aterfront has been an area of quite s ig n ific a n t change - but i t is

one which we w ill see amd hear more of in the fu tu re , and i t is one we

a ll must approach w ith an awareness fo r it s social impact, as well as

w ith an appreciation fo r the need fo r progress.

Another issue is the nature and extent of penalty payments. The Government

continues to hear of instances where the additional money paid fo r work

outside the normal spread of hours, where th a t work is part and parcel

o f the business, is adversely a ffe ctin g the industry concerned. I t may

be necessary to look again at the structure o f the awards concerned in

th is lig h t. C ertainly fu rth e r examination is warranted.

The question of union amalgamation is a matter long overlooked. Organisational

structures cannot be s ta tic when the environment in which they work is .

in constant change. The ACTU has presented a paper to the National

Labour Consultative Council on union amalgamation and a committee o f the

NLCC has th is under consideration. ■

The Federal Government is concerned with the question o f an employee's

in d ivid u a l rig h ts to choose whether or not to jo in a union. While

acknowledging the benefits o f union membership, th is must remain a

matter o f free choice so that union membership is not an absolute condition

o f employment.

On another p o in t, dispute settlement procedures ought to fin d th e ir way

in to more awards and these should be honoured. Such procedures provide

a means o f resolving on-the-job problems with fa r less re so rt to d ire c t

in d u s tria l action. I t should be our purpose to fin d other a lte rn a tive s.

The in d u s tria l re la tio n s system in A ustralia has evolved from the recognition

in the community th a t i t should be conducted responsibly w ith regard to

the in te re sts o f the whole community. ·

The system has been developed to preserve th a t aim. It;s ro le has been .

expanded to cope w ith the growing complexities o f our society and to

protect in d ivid ua ls from the pressures created by the pursuit o f sectional

in te re s ts . . .

As th is nation has developed, liv in g standards have improved. This has

not always been a smooth process. In d u stria l pressure has often been

substituted fo r reason; short term gain has sometimes been preferred to

la s tin g development. At such times, the system has been subjected to

intense pressure, but i t has survived.

We a ll must attempt to fin d a way through the in d u s tria l and economic

problems th a t confront us. .

I believe th a t Australians want th e ir in d u s tria l re la tio n s system to be

responsible, equitable and to protect individual rig h ts . The Government^

working w ith the other parties in in d u s tria l re la tio n s , must ensure th a t

the system re fle c ts these goals.