IN THE AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
In the matter of a notification of an industrial dispute between
The Association of Employers of Waterside Labour
and
Federated Clerks Union of Australia
in relation to wages and working conditions and manning Port of Brisbane
(C No. 4058 of 1984)
MR COMMISSIONER BAIRD BRISBANE, 28 NOVEMBER 1984
DECISION
This matter came before the Commission following a series of stoppages in the
Port of Brisbane by members of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia (FCU)
in pursuit of a claim for the employment of an additional eight clerks as
members of the "A" pool of clerks employed by The Association of Employers of
Waterside Labour (AEWL) in the Port of Brisbane.
The Commission had dealt with the issue in conferences but
recommendations made to the parties were not accepted and the matter is now
before the Commission for decision.
Logs of Claims were served by both parties from which dispute C No. 4058
of 1984 was found. Among the matters in the logs staffing and the manner in
which the employment was to be carried out are matters which have already been
subject of hearings before the Commission.
A decision in respect of Brisbane Amalgamated Terminals Ltd (BATL) is
pending which together with an earlier decision made in June 1984 have some
bearing on this matter. For that reason and the existence of logs of claims
covering staffing, this matter will form part of that dispute.
A threshold matter raised by the FCU was the authority to be given to
the Commission in respect of the settling of the dispute. After discussion
between the parties, agreement was reached that in this matter the disputes
avoidance procedure sought by the employers in their log of claims would be
accepted by both parties. That procedure provides, as a last step, that the
decision of the Commission would be accepted by both parties as settlement of
disputes submitted to the Commission.
The employers pointed out that this agreement applied only to this
matter and the avoidance of disputes procedure would still be a matter to be
dealt with for inclusion in any decision made during the course of dealing
with the logs of claims.
The claim presented by the Union was for the employment of seven clerks
previously employed by Consolidated Wool Dumping (CWD) and made redundant, and
an organizer from the Shipping Clerks Section.
The Union relied on submissions and evidence showing port shortages of
labour and the working of overtime considered excessive by the Union. Various
exhibits were presented by both parties and gave a picture of the use of both
"A" and "B" pool labour. A history of the co-operative role of the Union was
presented with an explanation of previous agreements between the parties about
the employment of labour to achieve an economic operation of the port.
Emphasis was placed on the history of employment of the seven CWD
clerks. It was pointed out that following the negotiations between the parties
it had been agreed that they would be attached to the "B" pool. This pool
provides labour additional to permanent and "A" pool labour on a voluntary
roster basis to meet the port requirements.
The Union traced a history of employment of ex management officers and
union officers. This past practice was not disputed by the employers except to
point out that the work circumstances of the port were different, the "A" pool
now being on a permanent basis as against some circumstances in which the
employment had been of a casual nature. This past practice of nonpartisan
employment of ex-officers was seen as an important contribution to the port's
industrial relations by the Union which should be continued.
The Association set out in exhibits and evidence objections to the
Union's claims based on past labour demand and projections of a continuation
of present economic conditions in some sections of the port. In respect of
BATL the possibilities of a downturn in operations was canvassed unless
industrial relations improved and a reliable turn around of shipping could be
guaranteed to shippers. The costs of idle time was presented as a major
consideration against increasing clerk numbers and figures based on the
employment of four additional clerks in the "A" pool were submitted.
There was some confusion as to the requisition of pool labour but the
employers asserted that the claim that overtime was excessive was not correct
but met the needs of the port operation.
The employers dealt at length with past decisions of the Commission in
respect of staffing disputes and emphasised the principles involved, that is
the rights of management to control the running of their business unless the
Commission determines the conditions of employment are unreasonable or unjust.
While agreeing in this matter to accept the decision, the role of the
Commission was dealt with as a guide to the Commission when making a decision
on the claim before it made by the FCU.
I do not propose to set out the details of the records provided by both
parties in respect of labour shortages or surpluses. During the proceedings it
became evident that the information was not complete in all respects and could
in some important aspects result in differing conclusions as to labour demand
which is at the centre of the issue before the Commission. The information as
to past demand and future projections was based on an "A" pool comprising 26
clerks. It was shown however the number had been reduced by two who had been
employed as permanent clerks by one of the stevedoring companies members of
AEWL and the pool now stood at 24 clerks, further that the two clerks
concerned were regarded as being experienced and difficult to replace.
I am greatly assisted by the agreement of the parties to accept the
decision of the Commission in this matter. The dispute has continued for some
time and has disrupted the working of the port which is to the detriment of
all parties.
Having considered the evidence and submissions I note that the seven CWD
clerks have been registered in the "B" pool and the Association has stated
that although they have received redundancy payments they will continue to be
so employed and if a vacancy does occur in the "A" pool they will be eligible
to apply for such a vacancy.
I do not set out the history of employment of each of the clerks, it is
sufficient to say that they have all had extensive employment in clerical work
under awards with a nexus with shipping industry awards.
I note further that two of the clerks have accepted employment in depots
or in related employment with the industry. The transfer of two "A" pool
members to permanent employment reduces the pool by two to 24 at this time.
References to concern that labour may be returned to the pool as a
consequence of a decision in respect of the making of a staffing award at BATL
is now not a cause for concern.
The employment of eight additional clerks is not warranted; they would
be far in excess of management requirements on the basis of the evidence
provided. However an addition to the pool numbers is reasonable in the light
of the continued shortages, the working of considerable overtime and the
regular use of "B" pool labour to supplement labour requirements. Not to
increase the "A" pool numbers would constitute a unreasonable demand on the
existing labour force to meet the demands of the employers for adequate supply
of labour in the Port of Brisbane. There was also evidence of a shortage of
supply to ancillary employers from the pool where a lower priority of supply
is practised.
The fluctuation of seasonal demand is also an important factor in which
an excess of labour would greatly increase costs through idle time payments.
The impending seasonal influences require additional calls on the "B" pool
during the holiday end of year period but a decline in past demand to March is
anticipated based on past experience of both Union and Associations
submissions.
Having considered these aspects I make the following decision:
1. The two ex-CWD employees who have accepted permanent employment
elsewhere are not entitled to be considered for employment at this
time in the "A" pool register. If however, they apply, they should
be included in the "B" pool register and be eligible to apply for
a vacancy in "A" pool when such occurs.
2. The "A" pool numbers be 26 to restore the labour force, by the
employment of two clerks, to the level before the transfer of two
clerks to permanent employment.
3. Because of the impending slack period no further addition to the
"A" pool should take place before 1 April 1985, when one
additional clerk will be employed in the "A" pool.
4. Those ex-CWD clerks who applied to be registered in the "B" pool
and not employed in the "A" pool as a result of this decision,
shall continue to be so employed, and will be eligible to apply
and be selected in the "A" pool should vacancies occur.
5. In respect of the employment of the shipping clerk organizer, I
believe it is in the best interest of future industrial relations
for the longstanding co-operative nonpartisan attitude, which
applied in the past, be continued. I note it is the Union's
intention to advertise the vacant position among shipping clerks,
and the member selected would undergo training away from the work
place. I therefore decide that Mr O'Brien shall be employed in
addition to the three clerks set out in points 2 and 3. The
employment of Mr O'Brien should not be taken to increase the
nominal complement of the "A" pool and is based on the special
circumstances arising from past custom and practice in the Port of
Brisbane and his employment to commence from 1 April l985.
I make it clear however, that the holding of a position as
shipping clerk organizer provides no automatic entitlement to
employment in the "A" pool in the future.
6. I make no decision in respect of which individuals should be
employed, this will be a matter for agreement between the parties.
All entitlements to long service leave and annual leave will
commence from the date of commencement of employment.
This decision arises from the parties agreement to accept the decision
of the Commission and has no relevance to any other situation being determined
entirely on the matters presented to the Commission in these circumstances.
The decision shall operate on and from the first pay period commencing
on or after 28 November 1984, and shall continue to operate for a period of
twelve months.
Appearances:
A. Morris and R. Argall for The Association of Employers of Waterside Labour.
D. Linnane, K. Taylor and T. Hale for the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.
Dates and place of hearing:
478 
/84 SD Print F7109 [1984] AIRC 114; (28 November 1984)