User:The Prince Manifest/WorkChoices

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A Brief Explanation of WorkChoices

Approved by the Senate on December 2nd 2005, and coming into effect on March 27th 2006, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, better known as WorkChoices, has radically shaken up Industrial Relations in Australia. Not only has it created a national system controlled by the federal government, it has also changed the rules and conditions of employment in Australia. Where previously there were many official regulations governing IR in Australia, the new system has seen a shift towards employment on the basis of negotiation between employees and employers, and has detracted from the role of the trade unions.

While the legislation has now been in effect for much of 2006, it still remains a highly contentious issue, and as of June has evolved into a major electoral battleground. On the one hand, the Government and much of the business community believe it will be healthy for the economy, while on the other, the Opposition and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) believe it will exploit Australian workers and return Australia to the class divisions of 19th Century Britain. So why are these changes to IR in Australia to contentious?

Concise History of Australia and Industrial Relations In a historical context, Australia has generally has a fairly regulated system of IR. Prior to 1996, IR had centred around a centralised system of ‘awards’ controlled by a series of state and federal industrial courts, the latter eventually replaced by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) via the Industrial Relations Act 1988. Awards had specified the minimum acceptable condition in regards to specific aspects of employment. For instance, forcing an employee to work outside their specific times of employment – making them work overtime – required to employer to compensate them with an increased level of pay, which, depending on their profession, was specified in the relevant award. Other examples include leave, standard base pay, and sick pay.

The responsibility of the industrial courts was to judge, based on the evidence presented to them, the most appropriate adjustments to make to the minimum employment conditions for Australian workers. Unions (mainly the ACTU) and employer groups (mainly the ACCI) played a major role in presenting the evidence heard by the courts. Also important in this context is the idea of the “living wage”. The living wage was the concept of a basic wage for Australian workers adjusted on the basis of the changing necessities of giving them a basic standard of living (SOL). This system was ended federally in 1967, although remained in place at state level until the 1980s. Common law contracts, sometimes referred to as individual contracts, also existed for much of this time, although they were generally negotiated privately and without a full application of government awards, the ‘independent contractor’ choosing the option so as to, essentially, pick and choose what conditions they wanted.

In 1993, following the historic decision of the AIRC in 1990 to allow union-supervised employer-to-employee bargaining, rather than just a simple application of the conditions in awards, the Keating Labor Government passed the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993. This introduced the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) system. EBAs introduced the concept of Enterprise Bargaining, the creation of a mutual agreement via negotiation between an employer and either employees or a union representing employees. The EBA would generally last over a period of several years, and saw every employee receiving them same conditions negotiated in the collective agreement.

Following the 1996 election victory of the Coalition, the new Howard Government passed the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Overriding the previous Acts passed by the Hawke-Keating governments, the new act had several notable effects:

  • Reduced the number of allowable matters in federal awards to 20
  • Introduced Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), a form of employment whereby the individual employee and employer would negotiate directly. These agreements, if acceptable according to federal awards, would be approved by the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA), and overrode any state IR laws in the process with the exception of Occupational Health and Safety (OH+S)
  • Restricted the activities of unions in workplaces, such as forcing them to give employers notice if they intended to show up
  • Outlawed closed shops, workplaces where non-union members were prohibited from being employed
  • Expanded the use of EBAs, now known as Certified Agreements (CAs)
  • Renamed the Department of Industrial Relations to the Department of Workplace Relations

So, up until March 26th 2006, Australia still had a fairly regulated system of IR. The Workplace Relations Act had helped deregulate it, but, due to a lack of majority in the Senate, the Howard Government had had to back down on certain aspects of the Act so the Democrats would to support it. As such, while IR was becoming centralised at the federal level, the states still retained a good deal of control, with their own industrial courts and awards. Attempts to pass further large-scale reforms by the Howard Government were feeble, as the Senate refused to pass them. A request by the federal government in 1996 for the states to voluntarily ‘refer’ their industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth had some success, with the Victorian Liberal government of Jeff Kennett moving to abolish the Victorian industrial courts. However, this only saw the Commonwealth government in control of one state IR system. The rest all retained their own courts and their own awards.

IR had all but disappeared as a major campaign issue by the 2001 Election, where National Security and Foreign Affairs were big issues, due to September 11th and the Tampa Crisis. However, following the 2004 Election, the Howard Government gained a Senate majority. As such, after having a third term characterised by non-domestic issues, the Government now had the opportunity to pass much of the domestic legislation blocked in their earlier terms. This is how the new WorkChoices system came about.

[edit] The Coalition Government

WorkChoices was over ten years in the making for the Coalition. As Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations under then Liberal Opposition Leader John Hewson at the 1993 election, current Prime Minister John Howard was personally involved in formulating a new IR policy. Following the Coalition’s loss at the “unlosable election” in 1993, many in fact had thought Howard would resign from the Federal Parliament, as he had expected to become Industrial Relations Minister after having spent a decade out of office. However, Howard re-emerged as Liberal leader in 1995, and became Prime Minister at the 1996 election.

Yet, Howard, despite his vested interest in IR, was unable to get his policy passed in its entirety. Many aspects were opposed by the Senate, at the time controlled by the Democrats. The Bill that passed, the Workplace Relations Act 1996, introduced major reform, but did not get the government everything that it wanted. As mentioned earlier though, the 2004 Senate election results presented the government with, as several commentators noted at the time, the ability to pass a decade’s worth of policy, and, nearing what appeared to be his swansong, it was now Howard’s opportunity to achieve his long desired IR reforms.

What is the Government trying to achieve with WorkChoices? As many of the Canberra press gallery have dubbed it, it is the finishing touch to Howard’s 25 year ‘crusade’ on industrial relations. Essentially, it is about taking power away from the unions and placing more power in the hands of private enterprise. Being the ‘Liberal’ Party, this is part of their ideology, giving more power to the free market. It is about allowing business to run more efficiently and effectively, and about sidelining the unions (traditionally the self-declared enemies of business). As opposed to the 1800s, where unions were required to prevent the exploitation of workers, conservatives now see them as maintaining ideological ghosts. It is not the case where employers are greedy and are out to exploit their workers, but rather, a situation where employers and employees must work hand-in-hand to ensure overall economic strength. The Government believes this, and as a result, wants to simplify the employment process to ensure that this growth can be brought about.

The issue of the Coalition being the ‘New Centralists’ is also relevant regarding the federalisation of IR. Traditionally, the Coalition had been the defender of states’ rights, while the ALP had been about greater centralism. This was demonstrated in 1996, when despite requesting the referral of IR powers to the Commonwealth, the Howard Government was rejected by four out of the five state Coalition governments. However, this changed in 2001, when all state and territory governments had become comfortably Labor-controlled, while the coalition had a less comfortable control of the federal government. The effect of this is that the Liberal Party agenda has moved towards an emphasis on the policies of their only Australian government, the federal government. As such, as part of being strong on economy, the Liberals are now looking to centralise powers traditionally controlled by the states. Examples of this include the introduction of the GST to replace a large number of state taxes, and the greater emphasis on the role of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

For the Howard Government, IR is certainly an area that needs to be centralised as part of creating a more centralised economy. It is unlike issues such as Health and Education, which are not relevant to Australia’s international performance, but rather, is more like that of Defence and Immigration, which benefit from consistency across Australia. This is because they reduce state ‘sovereignty’ in an area where Australia, as a Federation, is competing with nations that have single, national standards. This should be remembered.

[edit] The Labor Opposition

The Labor Party has opposed the WorkChoices system from the outset, and as such, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley is using it as a key issue in his bid for election in 2007. This was not unpredictable, when considering the history of the ALP regarding this issue. The individual state Labor parties were founded in the 1890s by union members, and the unions have played an active role in the party ever since. Generally seen as the dominant stream of the ALP (the other being the white-collar social democrats), blue-collar working class members are prominent in the party, significantly in New South Wales, where many refer to ‘Sussex Street’ (union headquarters in Sydney) as from where the NSW Right Faction is run. Former leaders Bob Hawke and Simon Crean are both former presidents of the ACTU.

Considering this, the criticism some have made of the ALP as being controlled by the ACTU are somewhat legitimate, as this is where many of their members originate. As such, the interests of the ALP in this debate are to protect the unions, and to fight the battles the unions fight in the workplace in the parliament. This begins with a restoration of a traditional ‘Industrial Relations’ system, instead of a ‘Workplace Relations’ system. Labor still has a spokesperson known as the Shadow Industrial Relations Minister, rather than a Shadow Workplace Relations Minister.

Citied as the first real issue Labor has had a clear policy on under Kim Beazley’s second leadership period, ALP policy on IR is very simply: Vote for the Government if you want AWAs, vote for us if you don’t. The ALP is committed to reverting to the pre-WorkChoices system of Awards, merging the FPC back in the AIRC, and lowering the bar in regards to unfair dismissal laws. A good way of describing it is reverting IR back to the 1993 Act, with a few of the additions of 1996 and 2005 being kept, such as some of the functions of the AIRC, and federalism.

Federalism though is an issue for which there is some need for clarity. Pending the results of the states’ High Court challenge (which is likely to fail due to the states’ adopting a politically biased interpretation of the Corporations Power) the ALP has two different policies on federalising IR. The Federal Opposition have said that they would keep the federal system in place, but the state Labor Governments have preached differently. They want to revert to a pre-1996 states system, with a minimal federal government role. This had included cancelling the Victorian Referral Power, which Premier Steve Bracks later discovered could not be done. As such, federal policy differs from state policy, although federalism will be the likely outcome.

[edit] WorkChoices: Change or Reform?

What actually is the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 about? Why is it regarded as radical, either as the unfair changes that ACTU and Labor Party allege it to be, or the necessary reforms aimed at stimulating economic growth that the Government has branded them as?

  • Section 51:
    • Clause 20 (Corporations Power): “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Foreign Corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth”
    • Clause 35 (Industrial Dispute Resolution Power):
  • Federalisation? Yes, and no. The new federal system takes in companies from the states’ systems (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania) that are defined under the Corporations Power in Section 51 of the constitution. The Workplace Relations Department refers to these as ‘constitutional corporations’. These are foreign corporations (any corporation that is incorporated outside of Australia but operating within Commonwealth limits), and trading or financial corporations operating within the limits of the Commonwealth. This latter category of corporation are considered so if they are incorporated, and have financial activities that are ‘significant’ or ‘substantial’ (generally meaning that it deals in more than a million dollars per annum). Sole traders and partnerships are NOT brought into the system. In addition to Section 51, several other constitutional and legal powers are used to federalise the system:
  • Territories Power: Provides coverage for the ACT and NT
  • The Victorian Referral Power: To continue control of Victorian IR
  • Interstate and Overseas Trade and Commerce Power: To cover waterside, maritime and flight crew employers and their respective employees
  • The External Affairs Power: To uphold International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions covering existing arrangements such as unlawful termination
  • Commonwealth Power: To cover employees of the Commonwealth

For unincorporated businesses though, which are NOT considered to be constitutional corporations, they will not be covered by the federal system, and will remain subject to state laws. The Commonwealth is however operating a transitional system for up to 5 years for unincorporated businesses wishing to incorporate so that they are covered by the federal system, which will allow them to make a smooth transition. For employers and employees having previously on state awards and/or agreements deemed constitutional corporations, two respective transitional arrangements exist:

  • Notional Agreement Preserving a State Award (NAPSA)
  • Preserved State Agreement (PSA)

Both of these commenced with the activation of the WorkChoices Act. They preserve all aspects of the state agreements, with the exception of what is deemed ‘prohibited content’, including anti-AWA clauses and restrictive apprenticeship clauses. They both will last for a maximum three year period. The NAPSA will be replaced by federal awards once the AIRC is either asked to make the change, or is a rationalised award fits the category, and the PSA when a new agreement is reached. As a result, around 85% of all Australian employees will be under the federal system.

  • Awards: Employers and employees previously bound by a federal award, or previously covered by the Workplace Relations Act, will continue to be so. Awards abolished under WorkChoices will continue to apply for a 5 year period as “transitional awards”, which will give unincorporated businesses the opportunity to stay in the federal system by incorporating, or the move to a state system. Under WorkChoices, allowable award matters within include:
  • Ordinary hours of work, rest breaks, notice periods and variations to working hours
  • Incentive-based payments and bonuses
  • Annual leave loadings
  • Ceremonial leave
  • Leave for the purpose of seeking other employment after notice of termination
  • State or territory public holidays, entitlements of employees to payment respective to those days, and days to be substituted for these public holidays
  • Monetary allowances (for expenses, responsibilities or skills not included in rates of pay, or for the purposes of particular tasks, or work under certain conditions or locations)
  • Loadings for working overtime or for shift work
  • Penalty rates
  • Redundancy pay by an employer of 15 or more employees
  • Stand-down provisions
  • Dispute settling procedures
  • Type of employment (eg. Full-time, casual, regular part-time and shift work)
  • Conditions for outworkers to the extent necessary to ensure that their overall conditions of employment are fair and reasonable

Previously allowable matters that have become non-allowable outright are:

  • Conversion from casual employment to another type of employment
  • Restrictions on the range and duration of training arrangements
  • Restrictions on the engagements of independent contractors and requirements relate to the conditions of their engagement
  • Union picnic days
  • Trade union training leave
  • Minimum wage

Awards specifying hours will remain in place, but will be subject the Standard after a three-year transitional period. There are also several awards that are no longer allowable, but will be preserved in varying ways where already part of employment terms. These are:

  1. Annual leave
  2. Personal/carer’s leave
  3. Parental leave
  4. Long service leave
  5. Jury service
  6. Notice of termination
  7. Superannuation

Matters 1-3 will continue to apply where greater than the Standard. Matters 4-6 will remain in place in general. Matter 7 will continue to apply until new legislation comes into effect mid-2008. These preserved awards will not affect any new employment agreements under WorkChoices, although new AWAs or collective agreements will override them. The AIRC, if directed to by the Minister for Workplace Relations, must ‘simplify’ or ‘rationalise’ awards to remove any ambiguities. However, it may not create any new ones unless replacing an older award. The AIRC will decide whether or not employers, organizations and employees which undergo rationalisation

  • Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs): While AWAs made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 will remain in effect unless terminated, new standards apply. Essentially, the new AWAs will have more variables, due to the reduced role of Awards in their creation, and as such, the absence of many of the tests applied by the OEA to ensure their validity. This may mean less conditions may be worked into the agreements. Current employees cannot be forced onto an AWA with the threat of termination.
  • Certified Agreements (CAs): While CAs made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 will remain in effect unless terminated, new standards apply. As with the new AWAs, it is essentially a case that more variables are possible, and in some cases, less ‘perks’ are available.
  • Australian Fair Pay Commission (FPC): Independent of the Government, the FPC plays a number of functions as part of the WorkChoices system, including setting and adjusting minimum wages and casual loadings. Specifically, its functions are:
    • Setting the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard (The Standard). Guarantees the minimum entitlements of employees, such as work hours, annual leave (preserved in the federal system) and sick leave. It also guarantees the frequency of payments. Components of the Standard are:
    • Setting the Australian Pay and Classification Scales (APCSs), which will replace minimum wage awards. The initial APCSs are the old awards, but will be altered by the FPC. Wages will be classification based, that is, by profession. For each classification, there will be a corresponding rate, including on an hourly rate, or by piece/product produced. Arrangements for the payment of wages can also be set out in APCSs. APCSs do not cover anything beyond the base pay, such as bonuses or allowances, which may be included in an award or agreement

Minimum entitlements under the standard include:

  • A minimum of four weeks annual leave for full-time employees, and an accumulation of annual leave for part-time employees on every four week work period completed
  • A maximum of 52 weeks unpaid parental leave, shared between two parents at the birth of a child, or adoption of a child below age 5. As such, maternity, paternity and adoption leave are covered. In addition to this, pregnant employees with a medical certificate stating she is fit to work but not in her current is entitled to be transferred to be a suitable position, and if not, be put on paid leave until a time when she is fit to resume her old position
  • A maximum of 38 ordinary hours of work per week. Guarantees that a person cannot be required or requested to work more than the ordinary 38-hour week, plus reasonable additional hours, unless the employer and employee agree to average it over a 12-month period. Any arranged time period greater than the Standard must be varied within three years to comply, and any arrangement lower than the standard will be maintained
  • Ten days of paid personal/carer’s leave (including sick leave), with a provision of an additional two days of unpaid carer’s leave per occasion and an additional two days of paid compassionate leave per occasion

The standard does not apply to those on pre-WorkChoices CAs and AWAs, or those on NAPSAs or PSAs

  • Setting the Federal Minimum Wage (FMW). The FPC is also capable of setting special FMWs for juniors, trainees, apprentices (including school based) and disabled employees. For employees not covered by the APCSs, they must be paid at least the FMW, which began at a rate of $12.75 an hour with the commencement of WorkChoices
  • Setting the casual loading rate. A standard compensation for casual workers on top of their hourly rate of pay due to their not being entitled to be paid annual leave or paid personal/carer’s leave under the Standard. The default at WorkChoices’ commencement is 20%

The FPC is responsibility for determining the timing, scope and frequency of wage reviews, the manner they are conducted in, and when decisions come into effect.

  • Increased Role for the Office of Workplace Services (OWS): With the reduction of the role for the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) with the reduction in the usage of awards, the OWS has taken up a more prominent ‘watchdog’ role. The OWS is capable of enforcing penalties for the breaches of employment entitlements such as:
    • A term of the Standard
    • A term of a workplace agreement
    • A term of an award or order of the AIRC
    • Meal break entitlements
    • Public holiday entitlements
    • Extended parental leave entitlements
    • Workplace determinations
    • Undertakings about post-termination terms and conditions
    • Various provisions of the Workplace Relations Act and Workplace Relations Regulations 2006
    • Right to and right to lack union membership
    • Right to a bargaining agent

The OWS is capable of taking action if:

    • A workplace agreement is lodged without meeting the pre-lodgement requirements
    • Discrimination against employees occurs, this being on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin. For the employee, there is also access to anti-discrimination remedies in federal and state discrimination legislation, and under the rules of the FPC and OEA
    • Roles of the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA): The OEA still retains a number of roles under WorkChoices, including:
    • Approving all AWAs
    • Enforcing award conditions where applicable
    • Protecting employees under 18 by ensuring parental or guardian consent is given when entering into an AWA
    • Advising employees about agreement making

New Unfair Dismissal Provisions: Perhaps the most controversial aspect of WorkChoices, employers under the federal system who employ 100 employees or less are exempt from unfair dismissal provisions. After the issue was raised in 2005 by Queensland National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce, the legislation was made to include, in the count of employees, those of corporations within corporations, like subsidiary companies and holding companies. This has become highly controversial, as it allows employers to dismiss employees without a reason, although unlawful dismissal is not affected by this

[edit] Public Players In The Debate

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI): Led by Chief Executive Peter Hendy, and representing 38 different employer groups, the ACCI (http://www.acci.asn.au/) is Australia’s peak business body. As such:

“The role of ACCI is to represent the interests of business at a national level as well as internationally. Through its network of businesses, each ACCI member organisation identifies the concerns of its members and plans united action. In this way business policies are developed and strategies for change are implemented. ACCI operates at a national and international level, making sure the concerns of business are represented to government at the federal level, and to the community at large.

ACCI takes a lead role in representing the views of business to government. ACCI's objective is to ensure that legislation or proposed policy approaches at a national level address the needs of Australian businesses, whether they are one of the top 100 Australian companies or a small sole trader”

In this capacity, Hendy has emerged as businesses’ Greg Combet. Where the ACTU has a criticism of WorkChoices, the ACCI will be there to dismiss it and to explain the benefits of the legislation.

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU): Led by Secretary Greg Combet (26/6 – “They reckon we used to run the country a while back. I reckon it wouldn't be bad if we did run it”) the ACTU is the peak union body in Australia. 46 unions make up their membership. Noteworthy ones in this debate include:

  • Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU)
  • Australian Workers Unions (AWU)
  • Construction, Forestry, Miners and Energy Union (CFMEU)
  • National Union of Workers (NUW)
  • Transport Workers’ Union (TWU)

Representing 1.8 million workers across its members, and with a huge reserve of capital, the ACTU has coordinated ‘popular opposition’ to the legislation. This includes regular criticism in the media, Combet generally appearing over Shadow Industrial Relations Minister Stephen Smith.

One of the ACTU’s highly effective weapons had been two ad campaigns highlighting reductio et absurdum situations in the work place, the first ran around September of 2005, and the second is occurring during July 2006. Also notable are two major strikes, or ‘National Day of Protest’, whereby the capital cities were flooded by union members, notably in Melbourne where city was literally occupied, on two occasions, November 15th 2005 and June 28th 2006.

Business Council of Australia (BCA): Led by former Wesfarmers CEO and current NAB Chairman Michael Chaney, and representing the Chief Executive Officers of 105 of Australia’s large corporations, the BCA (http://www.bca.com.au) is probably the most vocal supporter of the Howard Government in the WorkChoices debate. Established in 1983, the BCA’s purpose is to “to provide a forum for Australian business leadership to contribute directly to public policy debates in order to build a better and more prosperous Australian society”. Chaney, already a respected figure in Australian society, represents a more narrow and powerful group than his ACCI counterpart Peter Hendy. The BCA employs around one million Australians across its member companies, and from a lobbying point of view, has a lot of influence, both vocally and monetarily.

HR Nicholls Society: Named after Henry Richard Nicholls, the editor of the leading Tasmanian newspaper “The Mercury” in Hobart from 1883 to 1912, the HR Nicholls Society (http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/) is Australia’s leading IR think-tank. Nicholls himself had been brought before the High Court after criticising Justice Henry Bournes Higgins (Australia’s leading judge in regards to IR) as a “political judge” but was acquitted by the full bench. It came to prominence in August of 1986 when Prime Minister Bob Hawke had called them a bunch of “political troglodytes and economic lunatics”. The aims of the society are:

  • To promote discussion about the operation of industrial relations in Australia including the system of determining wages and other conditions of employment
  • To promote the rule of law with respect to employers and employee organisations alike
  • To promote reform of the current wage-fixing system
  • To promote the right of individuals to freely contract for the supply and engagement of their labour by mutual agreement
  • To support the necessity for labour relations to be conducted in such a way as to promote economic development in Australia

The society has a yearly conference, and as the major forum for IR reform, has provided many of the ideas utilised in the WorkChoices legislation.

Labor State Governments and the High Court: As part of coordinating a ‘states rights’ agenda (although many dub it straight out politicking), the 6 state governments, all under Labor, have launched a High Court challenge to the WorkChoices act, claiming it to be unconstitutional (the territories have always been under Federal IR and as such have nothing to gain, with the Victorian Bracks Government just joining in for the sake of it). New South Wales & Ors v Commonwealth (in addition to states, a few trade unions also contributed) occurred from May 4th until May 11th. The court has reserved its judgement and will likely release it by the end of 2006.

The case has two different potential results. If the High Court finds in favour of the states, the legislation will be revoked, and the states systems will return. Such a result would be costly and extremely embarrassing for the Commonwealth. However, in the event of a Commonwealth victory, the WorkChoices system will remain. This could have a number of potential effects. While a referral by the states of the remaining IR powers remains an unlikely outcome, the judicial analysis of the clause could give the Commonwealth a precedent to use in regards to expanding federal power in regards to all industry. This would have significant implications areas of corporate regulation, namely taxation.

[edit] How The Media Received It

WorkChoices is not an issue that the media have taken to, but is not really an issue they have taken a stand against. None have thoroughly supported it, but none have absolutely opposed it. The Australian Financial Review for example supports WorkChoices openly in editorials, but critically analyses its effects on economic growth. The Age on the other hand, while agreeing with aspects such as federalism, is critical of the reduction in the role of awards, and as such, protection for employees.

The Cowra Abattoir redundancies and rehirings are a case in point. In March, 29 workers, all union members) were sacked from the abattoir in rural New South Wales. 20 were then re-offered their positions with reduced entitlements. The ACTU swooped on these as example of the problems with WorkChoices, and the Government, following the wide coverage, pressured the abattoir into rehiring them. Many criticised it as an example of the use of the unfair dismissal laws, but the government implied it was a poor interpretation of unlawful dismissal, and would be handled by the OEA. In early July however, it was found the abattoir was acting totally legally, essentially because it was part of adapting the dynamic business environment around it.