Morrison authorities’s industrial relations invoice is a enterprise want checklist

“We’re all together,” said Prime Minister Scott Morrison solemnly in April – and given the economic crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian protagonists of industrial relations agreed for a few months.

Business groups, unions and governments have put aside their usual differences and worked together to minimize job losses.

They quickly negotiated changes to dozens of awards and company agreements, and adjusted rules and rosters to keep Australians in the workplace.

Then in late May, Morrison announced a new consensus-based approach to industrial relations when he saw the opportunity to work together in that spirit.

The federal government abandoned its efforts to impose more legal restrictions on trade unions and set up new “Industrial Relations Reform Roundtables” to bring together employers’ organizations, trade unions and government officials on reforming labor laws. Morrison said they were “not fit for purpose”.

“We have to put down our weapons,” he said. The change in approach has even been compared to the historic agreements of the 1980s in which the Hawke-Keating Labor government convinced unions to accept wage freezes in exchange for improved welfare benefits (such as Medicare and superannuation).

Read more: Australian Policy Explainer: The Price And Income Agreement

Well, the kumbaya moment didn’t last long.

Within a few weeks the parties withdrew to their corners and their usual talking points. No meaningful consensus on any topic emerged from any table.

Jennifer Westacott, Executive Secretary, Business Council of Australia, Christian Porter, Secretary of State for Labor Relations, Sally McManus, Secretary of the Australian Union Council, and President Michele O’Neil at a roundtable meeting on June 3, 2020.
Bianca De Marchi / AAP

Even tentative proposals – like an idea endorsed by the unions and the Business Council of Australia to combine the speedy approval of union-negotiated company agreements with greater flexibility in determining their suitability – have been shot down by tougher business lobbyists in partisan shots.

Read more: Morrison government invites unions to dance, but employer groups set the tone

In the absence of a consensus, the government has now taken up its traditional hymn book and again praised the “flexibility”.

Federal Minister of Labor Relations, Christian Porter, today unveiled the rotten fruits of the Roundtable Process, the 2020 Bill to Change Fair Work (Support Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) 2020.

If passed, it will further distort the already one-sided balance of power vis-à-vis employers.

The bill not only represents employers on the five issues discussed at these round tables (simplification of awards, company agreements, casual work, compliance and enforcement, and “greenfields agreements” for new businesses).

One of the biggest changes is to suspend rules that prevent corporate agreements from undercutting the minimum standards for awarding. This proposal was not even discussed at the round tables.

Attorney General and Labor Relations Minister Christian Porter will present the Morrison Government’s Labor Relations Bills to Parliament on December 9, 2020.
Mick Tsikas / AAP

This confirms that the gloves are off again in Australia’s endless IR wars.

Here are the main ways the bill weighs the scales further to the detriment of the worker.

Suspend BOOT

According to the current state of the law, corporate agreements cannot fall below the minimum standards for industry awards. This is known as a “better off overall test” – or BOOT -. The new bill instructs the Fair Work Commission to approve agreements, even if they fail this test, as long as the deal is nominally supported by affected workers (more on this below) and viewed as being in the “public interest”.

Australia is unique among the rich nations in that it allows employers to unilaterally implement company agreements without the involvement of a union. The BOOT is therefore necessary to prevent corporate agreements from undermining public procurement rights.

The bill provides for the suspension of BOOT for two years. But even if it were to be restored afterwards (which is uncertain), the agreements approved in that window will remain in effect (corporate agreements typically run for four years). Even after Australian law has expired, they will remain in effect until replaced by a new agreement or terminated by the FWC – both of which are unlikely to be the case in a non-union workplace.

Expecting unions to actively oppose non-BOOT-compliant agreements, the bill appears to also include measures to expedite its approval by the Fair Work Commission. The process must be completed within 21 days (with a few exceptions). This will limit the ability of affected workers to learn about and resist their loss of benefits and conditions. Unions are not allowed to intervene in agreements to which they were not directly involved (including interference in agreements to which no union was involved at all).

Broadening the definition of casual work

The increasing use of “casual employment” was a hot topic at the IR reform tables. The new draft law clarifies the definition of casual work as far as possible: casual work is a position that is viewed by the employer as casual work and is accepted by the employee and for which no regular employment is promised.

In other words, any job can be casual as long as the workers are desperate enough to take it. This will encourage the further spread of insecure employment with no right to paid leave. Most importantly, it removes a large potential liability for employers from recent court rulings that they may have owed vacation and sick leave reimbursement to workers who are not properly treated as casual workers.

Read more: What is casual work? The federal court ruling highlights a fundamental flaw in Australian labor law

Make part-time workers casual

Further casualization is achieved through new rules with regard to duty rosters and working hours for permanent part-time employees. The draft law extends the flexibility provisions originally introduced this year – in this brief moment of cooperation triggered by pandemics. The rules allow employers to change working hours for regular part-time workers without incurring overtime penalties or other costs (currently required with some bonuses). In this way, employers can effectively use part-time workers as another form of casual, just-in-time work.

Doubling of new project agreement times

Finally, the bill grants another great wish from the business list.

It enables super-long corporate agreements on large new projects. Contracts can last up to eight years – twice as long as now allowed – and be signed, sealed and served before workers start work (thereby denying them any input into the process).

According to revised BOOT regulations, they could also undercut the minimum standards for industry awards.

Back to normal business operations

These changes are heralded as an incentive for post-pandemic job creation. But this claim is hollow.

In reality, the changes in part-time and casual rules will actually discourage new hires. Since existing employees can be adapted to the needs of the employer free of charge, no additional employees need to be hired.

Weaker BOOT protection will spark a wave of new corporate agreements, most of which are union-free, aimed at reducing (not increasing) pay and standards. This mocks the goals of collective bargaining and offers employers further opportunities to cut labor costs (already at their slowest pace in post-war history).

So what should you do with that short-lived togetherness that supposedly started this whole process? In retrospect, it appears to have only been an opportunity for the coalition government to pose as visionary statesmen at a time of crisis.

Now, just a few months later, the government is returning to its old ways – and the pandemic is just another excuse to scapegoat unions, cut wages and fatten corporate profits.