Chronology of Events in Both the Qantas and Waterside Disputes - Case Study Example

QАNTАS AND WATERSIDE DISРUTЕS Student’s Name: Institutional Affiliation: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Abstract 6 Overview 7 Chronology of Events in both the Qantas and Waterside Disputes 9 Qantas Dispute’s Milestone 9 Waterside Dispute’s Milestone 13 Underlying Causes of Qantas and Waterside Disputes 15 Qantas dispute 15 Waterside disputes 17 It is estimated that in the early 1990s, over 70% of both imports and experts were being transported through the sea. This accounted for than $60- billion of the Australian trade. These statistics, however, did not include returns from importation of cars. One of the greatest corporations in Australia dealing with transportation is the Patrick corporations. 17 Since early 1980s, the performance and productivity of Australian waterfront was of great concern. Different governments had tried to fix the situation but still a lot needed to be done. The new government elected in 1996, led by Mr. Howard. In 1997, it changed the Industrial Relations Act to Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Macmillan, 2000). The aim of this change was to minimize the powers of the external influences such as trade unions in an organization’s operations. At the same time, this legislation went a step further to reduce the powers of dispute resolution body-Australian Industrial Relations Commission. All these efforts lead to reduction of collective bargaining by unions and employees in workplaces. This did not go well with workers associations and trade unions in Australia. 17 Despite all these, Patrick Corporation was willing to improve its performance and productivity. The cooperation intended to do this by reducing the number of employees and banning overtime entitlements being enjoyed. At the same time, Fynwest Pty Ltd, an Australian stevedoring company, started to recruit defense forces and immediately start their training. The aim was to send them to Dubai, where they could be accorded international training standards based on an Australian non-union dock worker program. 18 This did not go well after it was noted by MUA, who reported the issue to the media. Dubai government was forced to cancel these employees’ visa. On the other side, in September 1997, Patrick corporation was doing corporate restructuring by changing its hiring laws such as sacking employees without any notice in case of an industrial action. To make matters worse, the company was carrying out these changes without involving both the MUA and its employees. The objective was to have only non-union employees in its workforce. 18 The above scenario was the cause of industrial action in late 1997 and early 1998. The strike was mostly at the Melbourne's No 5 Webb Dock (Bramble, 1998). The corporation went ahead to dismiss all its employees and employed non-union ones. The following day all its docks became ones again operational. MUA then filed the case to the federal court where Justice North ruled in favor of the union. Patrick tried to appeal at both the federal and high court with the support of the government, but the earlier judgment was held. 18 Later on in June 1998, the two parties agreed on a return-to-work formula which included voluntary redundancies, contracting some jobs, among others. However, MUA retained its right of workers’ representation (Riley, 2005). The new non-union workers were laid off, but they had to be settled after court cases. For the Fynwest Pty Ltd employees, with annual contacts, were paid their dues plus bonuses. 19 Why Patrick chose to lockout its workforce and Qantas ground its planes 19 Qantas and Patrick had different reasons as to why they took these actions. As for Qantas, the CEO of the airline decided to ground the fleets in order to protest the actions taken by its employees and their unions. At the same time, it did that to have an intervention by the government. To some extent, the airlines archived its objective since it was supported by the government all through. 19 On the other hand, Patrick decided to lockout its workers so that it could have time to accommodate the non-union employees. The success of this action was just temporal since it was not supported by the courts’ decision. 19 Available alternatives and their pros and cons to both Qantas and Patrick 20 In both cases of the two companies, it is clear that the problems could be mitigated earlier enough to avoid such losses. For the Qantas, the company could have involved the unions representative and see how the review of the enterprise agreement could have been resolved and how the new issues world have been included. The solution could be found if the employees were involved. The disadvantage about this is that it could have taken long and the government could not have given much assistance to the airline. It is however great since the airline could not have lost so much and again it could have retained its reputation. 20 Patrick’s situation was simple if the restructuring of the corporation involved all the stakeholders. All issues were touching on employee’s welfare but they were never involved. The con to this option is that the restructuring could not have taken place since MUA could have opposed the move. At the same time, the corporation could not have lost much or have any court battle with workers. 20 Similarities and Differences of both disputes 20 The two cases are similar in many years. One is that in both, workers unions were involved, fighting for their members’ rights. The government seems to support the companies in hiring non-union workers. Employees are laid off on both situations. Again, the actions did not take so long to be resolved. Finally, workers are not listened to, leading to strikes in both cases and a lot of legal battles. 20 The differences are that Qantas lost so much in the strike compared to Patrick. In addition, the government seems to give support so much on Qantas than in the case of Patrick, though in both cases it supports them. Again, Patrick Corporation was dispute over water transportation as opposed to Qantas which was in air transportation industry. 21 The nature of disputes had changed after a decade since 1998. In the Qantas case, there were so many parties involved which represented different interests which were still new such as FWA. The inclusion of so many parties led to delay in finding a solution. 21 Recommendations 22 Workers inclusion 22 There is need to include workers and their unions when solving issues at workplaces. If this could have been done, then both cases could have been solved amicably. 22 Policy formulation 22 In the process of formulating policies, the government needs to come up with laws that cater for the rights of all stakeholders concerned. This provides a way of solving disputes. 22 Proper management skills 22 In both cases there seem to be lack of proper skills and experience of management. This is very crucial to avoid losing so much in the long run. 22 Government involvement 22 In some situations like in the cases above, the government should not be seen to favor one side. The experience is that, instead of solving the situation, it exaggerates and becomes more complicated. 22 Conclusion 22 Business organizations or corporations need to ensure they involve their employees when strategizing on issues that affect them. All options should be explored when solving organizational issues. Companies should weigh all sides to make sure that they protect their reputation and avoid losses especially big firms such as Qantas and Patrick corporations. 22 Abstract The following paper looks at the two disputes that took place more than two decades apart. These are the Qantas and the waterside disputes of 2011and 1998 respectively. The chronological events that culminated to these two disputes have been discussed including different stakeholders in both cases. The papers will also analysis the actions taken by all these stakeholders. The cause of these two conflicts has been analyzed together with the achievements made. In addition, alternative options that the stakeholders would have taken have also been given out. Finally, some recommendations of how these cases would have been solved and other organizational disputes halve been suggested with a brief conclusion of the entire paper. Overview Organizational disputes are common in any working place involving different stakeholders. However, it requires experience and knowledge of how to solve such problems (Combe, 2014). In this regard, the two cases of both Qantas dispute of 2011 and waterside dispute of 1998 are common in many instances. The difference comes in how such disputes tend to be solved in organizations. In the case of Qantas, this is a company which was started in early 1920s in Queensland Australia. It forms one of the largest airlines in the world. The company has witnessed tremendously, becoming the greatest brand not only in Australia but also all over the globe. For many years, the government of Australia only to be fully privatized in 1995 owned the company. In recent years there has been issues involving the unions that represent workers at different levels. These groups include Transport Workers of Australia, the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association and the Australian and International Pilots Union (Bartsch, 2012). The issues raised are different but they all base their claims on job security, levels of payment and outsourcing aspects. The above claims lead to negotiations involving all these stakeholders and the government officials. However, each group made its members to deploy mild relations sanctions. These steps were seen as lawful way of protecting industrial action. In the case of waterside disputes, the issues of employee complaints are almost the same. The Patrick corporation senior management decided to restructure its workforces by increasing its performance and productivity (Woodside, 2014). In this process, many employees were to be laid off, something that did not go well with permanent and pensionable employees (Amann, 2013).The employees were members of the renowned the Maritime Union of Australia. However, the locking out and dismissal of these employees was ironically being backed by the national coalition and liberal government. Patrick Corporation operated in major four ports where this dispute was eminent. These ports included Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and Fremantle. The cause of the this dispute was primary based on the decision by the federal government and the Patrick corporation to improve the performance and efficiency of the operations through reducing the number of staff and also the power of the Maritime Union Of Australia (Ellem, 2004). The above events are understandable in any such workplaces, but the way they are handled by those concerned, is the only issue that leads to such major industrial conflicts. Chronology of Events in both the Qantas and Waterside Disputes Qantas Dispute’s Milestone Table 1: Qantas dispute’s milestone Dates details 23rd August 2010 Members of the AIPA are canvassed to renew their enterprise agreement 15th February 2011 An enterprise agreement between ALAEA and Qantas was terminated. This allowed a new sort of claims to be followed by the unions. 15th March 2011 Orders to authorize a secret ballot of members of ALAEA for an industrial action are applied to FWA. 9th May 2011 The members of ALAEA would sto work as for half an hour in the afternoon and for one half hours in the morning. They would refuse some duties. This is after negotiation involving their union and the airlines stalled. 10 May 2011 ‘Foundation principles’ are developed by TWU to make agreement with Qantas. 26 May 2011 Secret ballot order of taking protected industrial action is granted by FWA to AIPA. 10 June 2011 An enterprise agreement involving the Australian Services Union and Qantas for the application of 7,200 administrative employees is approved by FWA 22 July 2011 Protected industrial action of making in flight announcements to the passengers and therefore promoting job security is started by AIPA 27 July 2011 TWU’s secret ballot for protected industrial action is authorized by FWA to be held 16 August 2011 A big restructuring process of more thatn100 jobs is too carried out by Qantas. 24th August 2011 Releases it’s a 46% pre-tax profit, which accounted for about $552 million is announce by Qantas in its financial report. 6th September 2011 A claim by AIPA of having pilots employed by NZ-based subsidiary(JetConnec)- which is regulated by Australian IR laws is refused by FWA 14th September 2011 A proposal is made by the TWA to sto working for 4 hour. This would involve about 3800 members. On the other hand, Qantas accused these unions for their action, claiming that about 28 flights would not take off and other 27 would be delayed. 5th October 2011 Qantas claimed that those workers who did not participate in strike action were being intimidated. 7th October 2011 The government through its Workplace Relations Minister, Mr. Evans voices its concern over the continued disputes. 11 October 2011 Mr. Purvinas who laws the secretary of ALAEA Secretary suggested that those passengers who intend to book over Christmas should choose to take other carriers. 13th October 2011 The tourism, minister signals some displeasure and that he could intervene after the cancellations of flights and also the grounding of 5 aircrafts. 14th October 2011 The government through PM Gillard flexes its muscles and issues a statement which emphasis the need to negotiate and solve the matter. 29th October 2011 Alan Joyce, the CEO of Qantas Airlines announced the grounding of the entire Qantas domestic fleet as a result of the strike and the bargaining ground with the unions. Waterside Dispute’s Milestone Table 2: Waterside Dispute’s Milestone period description March 1996 A coalition government is elected, promises electorate of restructuring of industrial relations and increased efficiency and productivity. Early 19097 The government effects legislation September 1998 A director of International Purveyors in Cairns Queensland attempts to bring non-MUA labor law to be employed in the Australian Workplace Agreements December 1997 Fynwest company starts recruiting defense forces and other special forces to be incorporated in its workforce Let January 1998 The issues of waterfront escalate and Patrick corporation decides to lock its employees from its Webb Dock operation that midnight in Melbourne. February 1998 P&C Stevedores (PCS), another operator of the waterside with the support of National Farmers Federation starts to train workforce ate Webb Dock. Jam and February 1998 MUA seeks certified agreements with Patrick corporation including protected industrial action. The implications of the legislation start to unfold by affecting the operations of the waterfront. 2nd April 1998 Australian Workers Union threatens to shut down its oil refineries to show solidarity with MUA. However, this did not take place. 6th April 1998 MUA goes to court to prevent Patrick from sacking its workforce. It was not granted. 7th April 1998 Patrick corporation locks out around 1400 of its entire permanent workforce nationally. 300 part time workers are also locked out 8th April 1998 Mr. Reith, the minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business outlines a strategy of how MUA members would be compensated including payments for redundancy. This also included those who were working for Patrick Stevedores. MUA seeks court’s intervention. They are granted one week injunction. 10th and over Easter Non-MUA labor and PCS started stevedoring operations in different ports. court battle ensued 4th may 1998 The high court ejects Patrick corporations appeal and a new order of operation is put in place. Underlying Causes of Qantas and Waterside Disputes Qantas dispute As noted in the above table, the problems of Qantas dispute started back in early 2010 when the AIPA started to canvass its members to commence the push for review and renewal of the enterprise agreements. This included about 1700 long haul pilots in Qantas. In December 2010, the enterprise agreement expired. This allowed the union to start pursuing other claims. The union then started to bring issues to do with job security and also the same payment of both the contractors and the Qantas staff. It is at this point that the union filed a case to the Fair Work Australia to have a secret ballot for a protected industrial action. This request included banning of overtime, work meetings and refusal to feed information into software, among other measures. These actions were to start after easter holidays. The above complaints made the ALAEA members to stop working for some hours in the morning and in the afternoon. This was in early may, after negotiations had failed to bear any fruits. At the same the TWU outlined some principles to guide its agreement with Qantas. In the meantime, the AIPA was granted a secret ballot order to go ahead with the protected industrial action. It was in the late July of 2011 that the union started its industrial action. It was later however put a notch higher when Qantas announced its new restructuring measures that would see more than1000 jobs lost by its employees. In addition, the company planned to start new Asian-based airline with some expected cancellations and delays of flights. During the middle of august 2011, Qantas released its pre-tax profit which indicated that it had made over 46% increase compared to the previous year. However, according to the airlines Chief Executive Officer, the company was still not making good returns from its shareholders. In the middle of September, TWU announced that its members would not work for four hours which also included imposing bans. After one week, industrial strike was already in place while Qantas alleged intimidation of workers who did not participate. The police commenced investigation of these claims. The effects of this strike started to be felt when the airline cancelled 28 flights and delayed 27 others. A bone of contention ensued when between the ALAEA Secretary, Mr. Purvinas and the minister for Tourism, honorable Martin Ferguson, when the latter suggested that the passengers should look for an alternative flight if they wished to book over Christmas period. It is at this point that government felt the need to intervene and advised the unions and Qantas to start negotiations. Since the airline’s CEO, Mr. Allan Joyce, in a move to oppose the actions of its employees and the three unions, ordered the grounding of the entire domestic fleet. However, through the FWA, with its full bench, the industrial action was terminated. The parties involved were then directed to agree within 21 days but if need be, these period could as well be extended. The airline alleged to have undergone major losses due to the industrial strike which amounted to $194million. This included loses in the grounding of the fleets, losses of customers’ loyalty, forward bookings and the general loses from the unions’ actions. Finally, in the middle of December 2011, an agreement was reached between the unions and Qantas, which was a 3% rise in engineers’ salary but with a possible job cuts. Waterside disputes It is estimated that in the early 1990s, over 70% of both imports and experts were being transported through the sea. This accounted for than $60- billion of the Australian trade. These statistics, however, did not include returns from importation of cars. One of the greatest corporations in Australia dealing with transportation is the Patrick corporations. Since early 1980s, the performance and productivity of Australian waterfront was of great concern. Different governments had tried to fix the situation but still a lot needed to be done. The new government elected in 1996, led by Mr. Howard. In 1997, it changed the Industrial Relations Act to Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Macmillan, 2000). The aim of this change was to minimize the powers of the external influences such as trade unions in an organization’s operations. At the same time, this legislation went a step further to reduce the powers of dispute resolution body-Australian Industrial Relations Commission. All these efforts lead to reduction of collective bargaining by unions and employees in workplaces. This did not go well with workers associations and trade unions in Australia. Despite all these, Patrick Corporation was willing to improve its performance and productivity. The cooperation intended to do this by reducing the number of employees and banning overtime entitlements being enjoyed. At the same time, Fynwest Pty Ltd, an Australian stevedoring company, started to recruit defense forces and immediately start their training. The aim was to send them to Dubai, where they could be accorded international training standards based on an Australian non-union dock worker program. This did not go well after it was noted by MUA, who reported the issue to the media. Dubai government was forced to cancel these employees’ visa. On the other side, in September 1997, Patrick corporation was doing corporate restructuring by changing its hiring laws such as sacking employees without any notice in case of an industrial action. To make matters worse, the company was carrying out these changes without involving both the MUA and its employees. The objective was to have only non-union employees in its workforce. The above scenario was the cause of industrial action in late 1997 and early 1998. The strike was mostly at the Melbourne's No 5 Webb Dock (Bramble, 1998). The corporation went ahead to dismiss all its employees and employed non-union ones. The following day all its docks became ones again operational. MUA then filed the case to the federal court where Justice North ruled in favor of the union. Patrick tried to appeal at both the federal and high court with the support of the government, but the earlier judgment was held. Later on in June 1998, the two parties agreed on a return-to-work formula which included voluntary redundancies, contracting some jobs, among others. However, MUA retained its right of workers’ representation (Riley, 2005). The new non-union workers were laid off, but they had to be settled after court cases. For the Fynwest Pty Ltd employees, with annual contacts, were paid their dues plus bonuses. Why Patrick chose to lockout its workforce and Qantas ground its planes Qantas and Patrick had different reasons as to why they took these actions. As for Qantas, the CEO of the airline decided to ground the fleets in order to protest the actions taken by its employees and their unions. At the same time, it did that to have an intervention by the government. To some extent, the airlines archived its objective since it was supported by the government all through. On the other hand, Patrick decided to lockout its workers so that it could have time to accommodate the non-union employees. The success of this action was just temporal since it was not supported by the courts’ decision. Available alternatives and their pros and cons to both Qantas and Patrick In both cases of the two companies, it is clear that the problems could be mitigated earlier enough to avoid such losses. For the Qantas, the company could have involved the unions representative and see how the review of the enterprise agreement could have been resolved and how the new issues world have been included. The solution could be found if the employees were involved. The disadvantage about this is that it could have taken long and the government could not have given much assistance to the airline. It is however great since the airline could not have lost so much and again it could have retained its reputation. Patrick’s situation was simple if the restructuring of the corporation involved all the stakeholders. All issues were touching on employee’s welfare but they were never involved. The con to this option is that the restructuring could not have taken place since MUA could have opposed the move. At the same time, the corporation could not have lost much or have any court battle with workers. Similarities and Differences of both disputes The two cases are similar in many years. One is that in both, workers unions were involved, fighting for their members’ rights. The government seems to support the companies in hiring non-union workers. Employees are laid off on both situations. Again, the actions did not take so long to be resolved. Finally, workers are not listened to, leading to strikes in both cases and a lot of legal battles. The differences are that Qantas lost so much in the strike compared to Patrick. In addition, the government seems to give support so much on Qantas than in the case of Patrick, though in both cases it supports them. Again, Patrick Corporation was dispute over water transportation as opposed to Qantas which was in air transportation industry. The nature of disputes had changed after a decade since 1998. In the Qantas case, there were so many parties involved which represented different interests which were still new such as FWA. The inclusion of so many parties led to delay in finding a solution. Recommendations Workers inclusion There is need to include workers and their unions when solving issues at workplaces. If this could have been done, then both cases could have been solved amicably. Policy formulation In the process of formulating policies, the government needs to come up with laws that cater for the rights of all stakeholders concerned. This provides a way of solving disputes. Proper management skills In both cases there seem to be lack of proper skills and experience of management. This is very crucial to avoid losing so much in the long run. Government involvement In some situations like in the cases above, the government should not be seen to favor one side. The experience is that, instead of solving the situation, it exaggerates and becomes more complicated. Conclusion Business organizations or corporations need to ensure they involve their employees when strategizing on issues that affect them. All options should be explored when solving organizational issues. Companies should weigh all sides to make sure that they protect their reputation and avoid losses especially big firms such as Qantas and Patrick corporations. References Amann, W. (2013). Integrity in organizations: Building the foundations for humanistic management. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Bartsch, R. I. C. (2012). International aviation law: A practical guide. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Pub. Bramble, T. (1998). War on the waterfront. Brisbane, Qld: Brisbane Defend Our Unions Committee. Combe, C. (2014). Introduction to management. Ellem, B. (2004). Peak unions in Australia:. Annandale: Federation Press. Macmillan, F. (2000). International corporate law. Oxford: Hart Pub. Riley, J. (2005). Employee protection at common law. Annandale, N.S.W: Federation Press. Woodside, A. (2014). Field Guide to Case Study Research in Business-to-Business Marketing and Purchasing. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Read More