The Need for the Unified Commission

Starting with the Industrial Relations Act of 1988, the following two decades were a necessarily prolonged period of repeated and substantial changes to industrial legislation. In fact, the working class had become increasingly passive: union membership had fallen from a peak of 60% in the 1960s to 20% in the early 2000s.

The WorkChoices Act (2005) was the first attempt to attack workers.

It was declared “the most fundamental reform of the industrial relations system in over 100 years.” Howard, the then Liberal Prime Minister, said it was “a more flexible, simpler, and fairer workplace relations system for Australia.” In simple terms, the new body focused on “strengthening the Australian economy” through the introduction of a “more decentralized system of workplace relations.”

It shifted the balance of power away from unions toward established bargaining units to support company bargaining, while increasing the power of the state apparatus.

Employers’ organizations, the ACI and the Business Council (BCA), gave their full support to these measures and urged their evolution towards the deregulation of workers’ rights.

But after the defeat of the Liberals and following significant mobilization against the new law, the elected Labor government of Rudd proposed the introduction of an “alternative.”

And so, in 2008, with the mass slogan in support of the labor law “Your rights at work deserve to be voted for” (which was modified from the original workers’ slogan “… deserve to be affirmed through struggle”) against the labor law, the Labor government launched a unified commission with tighter control over industrial relations.

By centralizing authority, the state ensured that disputes were channeled into a single institutional channel, limiting the risk of mobilization escalating into open struggle. For businesses, a single national arbitrator would reduce uncertainty in negotiations and disputes.

“This bill provides a simple, national workplace relations system for all Australians… a system that ends the uncertainty, confusion, and division of the past and creates the stability and confidence we need for the future” (Julia Gillard, then Prime Minister, speech introducing the Fair Work Bill to the House of Representatives, 2008).

Fundamental to this was the strengthening of the role of trade unions as agents for the enforcement of state-level standards. The new law established state involvement in the increasingly fragmented relations between workers and employers.

This is now the labor law that covers all workers in Australia.

It defines the following roles of the bodies (the FWC and the Fair Work Ombudsman), national minimum employment standards (pay, working hours, working conditions, etc.), company bargaining procedures, strike procedures, and the role of the Ombudsman in applying financial penalties, as well as the means of appealing to federal courts for punitive intervention.

The body first explicitly establishes how industrial agreements should proceed (sector/industrial agreements have been suspended and only company agreements are now permitted). A Commission oversees the role of trade unions as bargaining agents, which negotiate the details of the industrial agreement on behalf of employees with employers. They must therefore be “independent” from employers. Industrial agreements can only commence after formal notification and explicit consent from the employer or through the support of a majority (50%+1) of employees, administered and validated by the union bureaucracy under state supervision. This supervision is conducted by the Electoral Commission (AEC), which also administers federal and state parliamentary elections. The bargaining report is then submitted to the FWC, which regulates and supervises it, before making the final assessment and formalizing the agreement. The state therefore acts as guarantor of the unions and enforcer of all agreements.

Bargaining must also be conducted in “good faith” by both parties and therefore requires union action to be “fair.” What does “fair” mean? Explicitly, employees may strike for only two reasons: 1) in support of contractual demands and 2) in response to employer action against industrial bargaining.

This means that strikes may only occur if permitted and strictly only in relation to industrial bargaining.

The law therefore prohibits, for example: collective bargaining, sympathy strikes, “political” strikes, blockades, and wildcat strikes. The law specifies that legal strikes cannot take place if they “endanger the life, personal safety, or health, or the welfare of the population or any part thereof; or cause significant damage to the Australian economy or any important part thereof.”

If deemed illegal, the Commission may issue back-to-work orders against striking workers, and the ombudsman may impose fines on union leaders or involve state law enforcement agencies. However, such measures can only be enforced through the federal courts by means of an injunction. Once such an injunction is received, the matter will be prosecuted separately as a criminal offense.

Employers are granted the right to dismiss their employees upon notice when the union has first initiated union action, regardless of how disproportionate it may be.

A provision relating to the “nominal expiration date” provides for the revision of agreements every four years (or at agreed intervals). Once approved, workers may not organize or take union action on any matter covered by that agreement during this time interval, unless authorized by the Commission. Once the agreement expires, a new one must be negotiated to replace the previous one. In practice, this freezes wages and conditions (except as provided for in the agreement, which usually provides for annual percentage increases) for up to four years, ensuring “industrial peace” for the duration of the agreement, and unlocks the right to strike only once the nominal expiry date has passed and industrial bargaining has been agreed to commence. This remains valid unless, once again, it is permitted by the Commission.

If industrial bargaining cannot be approved, either party may request arbitration in court. An independent commission, external to the workplace, meets to hear arguments from both sides. Once this formal arbitration process has begun, the union is legally prohibited from taking any further industrial action, including strikes, work stoppages, overtime bans, or slowdowns. The Commission then issues a binding decision, effectively resolving the dispute and imposing the terms of the agreement, which all parties must abide by for the duration of the agreement.

The court as an instrument of bourgeois repression

This is the current state of labor relations in Australia. Workers can only work when employers allow them to, and they can only strike when the commission allows them to.

As we noted in our recent article on Australian Federal elections (TIC#5):

“The Act has imposed severe restrictions on wage bargaining and drastically limited union action, effectively criminalizing most strike strategies and amplifying the advantages of employers… the worsening living standards of the Australian proletariat are not the result of mismanagement by a few, nor are they a failure of government. Rather, it is the byproduct of the absolutely inevitable contradictions within the capitalist system, in which the bourgeois order directly opposes the immediate and historical goals of the proletariat.”

Only recently have more serious actions been taken against the commission. Let’s take a case from 2024 to show the way forward for workers.

On November 21, 2024, 1,800 Woolworths and Lineage workers launched indefinite strikes at five distribution centers and cold storage units. The strategy was to align company contract negotiations across the five centers during the Christmas period to demand: a 25% inflation-indexed wage increase and changes to AI productivity.

This system evaluates workers based on a speed parameter, whereby managers can punish and dismiss those who do not meet targets. Woolworths (together with Coles) holds 37% of the country’s food market. Striking workers managed to block 75% of Woolworths’ production.

In particular, the Dandenong South warehouse saw 200 workers go on strike. It is responsible for 40% of Woolworths’ production. Interestingly, Woolworths moved this warehouse from Hume, where it was heavily unionized, eliminating 700 jobs, with employment now halved at the new location. The Dandenong warehouse has seen 85% of its workforce join the United Workers Union (UWU) since it opened. Only 10 workers were members of the Shop, Distributive, and Allied Employees Association (SDA), a notoriously yellow union.

Despite the UWU’s dominance, only a small group of militant non-affiliated workers (not members of the UWU or SDA) engaged in picketing. The union quickly withdrew its official support (advising picketers to avoid “illegal acts”) and entered into intense negotiations with the employer.

Woolworths’ anti-strike tactics are noteworthy. They locked out workers, erected bollards on the main driveway, and installed security guards who reported the movements of workers and supporters to management, who could then alert a temp agency (Programmed) to transport scabs when security reported a possibility of picket line breaches.

In addition, throughout the action, workers and supporters were reported and monitored by the police.

The FWC ruled against the workers, arguing that the UWU was not negotiating in “good faith” with Woolworths and that the pickets were “obstructive” and undermined the negotiation process. The ruling deemed the picket illegal.

The strikers, however, carried out “illegal” actions without the support of the union, turning away supply trucks and scabs who wanted to enter the workplace.

Woolworths, in support of the Commission, whose “return to work” order had not been complied with by the striking workers, sought enforcement in the Federal Court.

Notifying the strikers of a federal injunction would have allowed the police to remove the strikers by force.

Most of the UWU workers involved in this case were urged by the union to stay away from the picket line. Although the injunction was still pending, for many it already seemed to have been served, awaiting enforcement by the police.

Anticipating that the police would disperse the picket line, some strikers decided to stay, risking arrest and fines. But at the last minute, an agreement was reached between the UWU and Woolworths (and its company union, the SDA).

The workers finally voted to accept a deal that included an 11% wage increase over three years, along with some cash payments and gift cards to workers.

If workers are to learn from this event, they must abandon all trust in the power of the Commission. Furthermore, the fetishistic compliance imposed on the union to maintain “good faith” negotiations with the exploiters must be eliminated. These traitors and agents of capital who conform to the state when the bosses demand it must be removed from the unions and replaced with a strong base that intrinsically understands the deterioration of living conditions and the necessity of political struggle.

We continue to see similar scenarios. In all sectors, even small disputes continue to highlight the role of the Commission. Miners in the Longford dispute organized pickets when the commission ordered them not to, and when they did (for over 700 days), they received fines of over $1 million against the union and union leaders themselves for “unfair” practices such as blockades.

Another case is that of Hutchison dockworkers unionized by the MUA, who were told not to picket after being fired via text message. They picketed, leaving ships full in the bay, refusing truck movement, and went on strike for 5 days before the Commission came back and forced the company to rehire the workers. Similarly, railway workers who were members of the RTBU Sydney union were told not to strike because it would cause significant damage to Sydney’s economy, with the union agreeing for fear of fines and entering into negotiations with the government.

With this in mind, we can see some first steps toward strengthening the court.

This latest move was an excuse against the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). In 2024, an “independent” investigation found that the union had been involved in illegal gang activity and workplace unrest against non-union workers and management. The government introduced the Fair Work Bill (2024) to put an end to the alleged corruption and “unfair play.”

Interestingly, the bill was reportedly in the works before the investigation began…

The bill amended the 2008 law to give the commission the power to overturn the union and replace its leadership. This is one of the most severe actions taken by the Australian government against a union in recent decades. Now that this bill has been passed, it sets a precedent for even more violent attacks in the future.

Why the CFMEU? Given the inevitable intensification of class contradictions, workers will progressively militarize and agitate as their living conditions worsen, taking up a political struggle. CFMEU members are the most obvious in this process. In contrast, the UWU quickly sided with the FWC in the Woolworths case. The most militant members of the CFMEU, aware of the opposing interests of its opportunistic leadership, may have ultimately ousted them for adequate representation of their class demands.

For the union rank and file, the growing conflicting interests of its leaders and the search for scapegoats for poor company agreements against the government began to become increasingly intolerable. Instead of denouncing the state, the union acted as a guarantor of social peace, demanding better administration from the government. In this way, it tied its members to the fate of the national economy and to the reformist illusion that the system could be corrected. Therefore, as the economic demands of its members increased, the desperate defense of their living standards would reveal the subversive content of their leadership and the need to take up political arms. In its most advanced stage, capitalism-imperialism inevitably sharpens political consciousness, as its very development clashes directly with the foundations of the bourgeois order.

Necessarily seeking an excuse to expand its powers and curb the militant process of the union, the court removed the leaders. It limited the possibility of bringing workers into the real political arena, as they now seek instead to restore their “stolen” leadership through the courts.

The court limited a possible threat, but at the same time strengthened itself for similar cases in the future.

It will be the coming years of worsening economic crisis that will dispel these illusions in the state in general and force the proletarian masses once again to face the harsh reality of capitalist society: declining purchasing power of wages, job losses, insecurity, poverty.

The phase of continuous growth in capitalist profits has come to an end. In Australia, we are witnessing a persistent decline in production. This, amid inevitable ups and downs, marks the steady and progressive decline in the rate of profit. Therefore, as the state increasingly supports private debt and necessarily cuts social programs, the force of the bourgeoisie will compress the living conditions of workers.