Malcolm Fraser, from Canberra, presents fresh angle on current shearing dispute
Hamilton Spectator, 5 April 1956, p. 7
The AWU is threatening to ban all shearing in a determined effort to force graziers to pay the old rates. Few people are ignorant of the calamitous effects of a strike in the shearing industry. Wool is Australia’s lifeblood, without it we cannot live as a nation. A strike that delays shearing ruins two years’ clip not just one.
In the year of the strike the staple is too long and so the buyers do not like it: in the year after as graziers return to their normal schedules it is too short and still the buyers do not like it. With the floods in Queensland, sheep now overdue for shearing are flystruck and wormy. If the sheep remain unshorn losses will be severe. In addition to destruction of the nation’s prosperity shearers are losing the high wages that the season normally gives them in return for their skilled labour.
I believe this strike is stupid for both sides, for its origins lie not so much in a fight between the AWU and the graziers, though that is what it has degenerated into, as a fight of the AWU with a rusty and inefficient arbitration system.
Australia now knows that this strike is, superficially at least, over a 10 per cent reduction in the shearing award in Queensland and over a 5 per cent reduction in all other States. Conciliation Commissioner Donovan made this reduced interim award for the other states some weeks ago.
BASIS OF THE AWARD
Before criticising the attitude of both sides towards this decision I want to describe briefly the basis of the award which is in two parts. There is firstly the basic award which includes payment for labour, margins for skill, allowances for expenses and lost time. Secondly, there is the wool value allowance which is meant to vary with the price of wool so that shearers may share in any additional prosperity in the industry. This is not a new idea. The ‘lead bonus’ system has worked satisfactorily for years at Broken Hill. It is most important to remember the division of the award into two parts when examining the dispute.
SUBMISSION TO MR DONOVAN
Recently the graziers placed a submission before Mr Donovan arguing that since wool values had fallen the wool value allowance, in accordance with the original agreement with the AWU, should come down. On the other hand the AWU placed a submission before Mr Donovan arguing that the basic award was outdated and that margins for skill were inadequate.
The hearing of the graziers’ case was postponed for some time in 1955 because the Commissioner said he wished to hear both cases together. Let’s have a look at his report and see what factors influenced him in his decision.
WHAT FACTORS DID HE CONSIDER?
On January 26 Mr Donovan said in a statement that from evidence taken many graziers and pastoralists were paying in excess of the award and that whilst these conditions were continuing it was difficult to prescribe reduced rates in an interim award.
On February 16 Mr Donovan stated that the 1952 wool value allowance had remained unaltered in 1955 despite a fall in wool prices from an average of 85d to 73d a pound. Wool had since fallen to an average of about 60d a pound.
He continues to say that ‘margins for skill and expense items in the formula upon which rates are assessed were also out of date but the continuance in 1955 of the 1952 wool value allowance compensated employees.’
This is the significant point in view of what later appears in the Commissioner’s report because surely if the employees deserved an unduly high wool value allowance to compensate for an outdated basic award in 1955 they would sill deserve it in 1956.
However a little further on in his report Mr Donovan said that he twice granted interim awards on application by the AWU on the basis of rising prices. Because of this precedent he argues he cannot now refuse an employer’s application for a reduced wool value allowance on the basis of falling prices.
DOES NOT FOLLOW
This decision does not seem to follow from what the Commission had previously said, namely about payment by graziers and pastoralists already being made in excess of the existing award and namely that he wished to hear both sides of the case together (that is concerning the basic award on the one hand and the Wool Value Allowance on the other). This last fact is especially important since he had also said that the basic award was outdated.
The comparison the Commissioner made in making his decision was a false one because the two situations are not the same. When he granted increased interim awards to the AWU there was only one question, that of bringing the Wool Value Allowance into line with rising prices. There was no dispute about the basic award. Now there are two problems, firstly, the Wool Value Allowance and secondly, the basic award, both of which the Commission has recognised to be outdated. To deal with one without ruling upon the other cannot be just but this is exactly what has happened. This position appears all the more unfavourably since Mr Donovan himself said that it was only the high Wool Value Allowance in 1955 that compensated employees for a [sic] outdated basic award.
DECISION LED TO STRIKE
Mr Donovan’s decision led directly to the strike now in progress and one cannot fail to sympathise with the AWU when the arbitration and conciliation system works in this fashion. Sympathy does not, however, mean approval of the union’s method of putting a wrong right. The arbitration machinery is coming under review shortly and a little patience could have been expected until we see what is to be put forward.
[bold in original] For the graziers’ part they have been forced into defending what I believe to be a bad decision. I say forced because too often people treat arbitration with an almost divine respect and will tolerate no criticism of it or of its decisions.
Such an attitude prevents people looking at the system to see if it is working well and our arbitration system has not been working satisfactorily for quite some time.
A bad decision has led to a strike that I believe to be not justified but understandable. This strike must be settled for Australia’s sake and for the sake of the pastoral industry which has hitherto enjoyed good labour relations, a factor that it is worth making great effort on both sides to preserve.
THE SOLUTION
There is a way out – one that maintains the principle of arbitration which is so vital to unionists and to graziers alike.
It is: An independent chairman and discussion between representatives of both sides to reach a decision to be binding until the revised arbitration machinery can review the whole case. It would be a good thing if the graziers could initiate a move for such a conference.