Australian Industrial Relations Commission

           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

                 The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia

in relation to distribution of waterside workers - Port of Sydney

                              (C No. 4868 of 1986)

MR COMMISSIONER SWEENEY     SYDNEY, 4 DECEMBER 1986

                                    DECISION

This matter was described as an urgent problem affecting the employer's,
Conaust Pty Ltd, efficient operation. It arises out of the reluctance of The
Waterside Workers Federation of Australia (WWF) to co-operate in giving effect
to the transfer of 45 permanently employed waterside workers in the Port of
Sydney out of Patrick Stevedoring Company: 42 to go into Conaust and 3 into
ANL.

      The transfer is in response to the needs of each employer as indicated
by a review of the actual labour usage presented in the quarterly statistics
of "Labour Distribution - Port of Sydney" for the 12 months ended September
1986.

      The basis for following this method of labour distribution is the
Memorandum of Agreement of November 1977 which regulates the functioning of
the stevedoring industry.

      It was not disputed that a redistribution of the order proposed was
indicated, having regard to the labour usage figures. However, the WWF
attitude of non co-operation derives from the disparity between the current
earnings of workers at Patrick Stevedoring being at a higher level than those
of Conaust to which they were being directed.

      The response to the statistics for the past two years, quarter by
quarter, port by port, was presented in submissions by The Association of
Employers of Waterside Labour (AEWL) with reference to an exhibit setting out
the relevant material. Summarising this it was submitted:

       "...that there have been regular changes with quite significant
      numbers. There have been some exceptions where by agreement between the
      parties, it has been decided not to make a change otherwise indicated,
      but they are few, and of course, all of them by agreement, where it has
      suited both parties for one reason or another not to go ahead with the
      change that was otherwise indicated."


      Concerning the subject dispute submissions were made and documents
tendered outlining the specific procedures followed. These exhibits included
tables of average weekly hours and earnings for Patrick Stevedoring and
Conaust. It was submitted that there are three principal factors leading to
the disparity in earnings between the two Companies in the Port of Sydney.

      1.    Patrick Stevedoring uses its labour to man Patrick's Terminal as
well as its ordinary general stevedoring activities. The terminal operation is
a 7 day, 3 shift operation with substantial overtime. In the near future
Conaust will be operating a similar but smaller operation at Little Bay.

      2.    The clientele of Patrick Stevedoring includes companies operating
the Scan carriers and the PAD line, other users operate roll-on roll-off
vessels which require continuous work. Conaust shares some of their type of
clients but they tend to use less labour intensive vessels.

      3.    Conaust operates and mans the CCS container depot on day shift,
Monday to Friday, with little overtime.

      It was argued by AEWL that there are practical needs for the
redistribution which fall largely into industrial considerations,
administrative considerations and commercial considerations and examples of
each were presented.

      It was said that the periodic redistribution of labour is the
cornerstone of the agreed arrangements regulating the industry and while the
WWF co-operation is not strictly relevant under the terms of the general
agreement in a practical sense it is essential as there would be a need for a
balloting procedure to give effect to the redistribution.

      The WWF responded to all of the issues raised, however, in essence they
submitted that there was no challenge to the general agreement of November
1977; emphasised the nature of the dispute as being something more than an
argument over the implementation of an administrative exercise but a matter
with important industrial relations implications for those directly affected.
"The issue is how the available work and earnings that flow therefrom will be
distributed amongst the membership."

      The actual higher earning capacity of employees of Patricks over Conaust
was illustrated with reference to the earnings of general duties man, the
mechanical operators and the Portainer operators.

      Reference was made to the flexibility exercised at the local level in
the past and the ability to reach mutual understanding not to implement
particular transfers.

      On this occasion a number of alternatives were suggested:

      *     "Ignoring the recent AEWL examination of the relevant statistics
            as has happened so often in the past."

      *     "The two relevant employers agreeing that the labour concerned can
            share weekend overtime."


      *     ". . . to re-examine the whole industry arrangements and seeing
               whether a better result would be achieved by measuring
            labour usage of 7 days rather than 5 days."

      *     ". . . a combination of these various alternatives especially
            given the well known pending developments about to occur in
            Sydney."

      It was further submitted that the Federation would like the Commission
to cause the parties to confer on these issues nominating Mr N. Docker as
their representative.

      It was said that on other occasions notwithstanding that on the figures
that distribution of labour should have occurred it was agreed amongst the
parties that:

            ". . . it was silly to simply light fires which someone else has
            to put out.

           In fact, in summary, that is what we are trying to avoid here
      because it is one thing for us - or indeed, this Commission, and I say
      this respectfully - to simply say an agreement has been reached and
      therefore it has to be carried out, win, lose or draw. Having said that
      someone then has to tell the branch or the group of workers concerned
      and someone, somehow has to try and have the decision implemented. I
      think the industrial scene is difficult enough today and in our industry
      as elsewhere, more or less, to cause us to want to try and avoid
      unnecessary disputes rather than take actions which are bound to have a
      negative effect on our members and lead to industrial disputes."

      While I am keenly aware of the urgency felt by Conaust that their
workforce needs should be met without further delay, I can accept the logic of
the union's argument.

      Therefore I direct that the distribution of labour take place but for as
long as there is a significant disparity between the earnings of the Patrick
and the Conaust work-forces an arrangement of week-end overtime sharing be
introduced. Such a sharing arrangement, I am led to believe, works
successfully in Brisbane.

      I would further recommend that the parties confer in order to establish
whether or not there is a need for modification to the existing arrangements,
to eliminate the need for such an expedient as overtime sharing.

* * END OF TEXT * *