Page 4043 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 24 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In order to set the scene for my concern and my belief that arbitration is the only method that will see a resolution to this dispute, I need to give some background to my own experience in relation to industrial relations in general. I was extremely fortunate to be employed by the Transport Workers Union of Australia in 1981. That organisation, as you may be aware, Madam Speaker, is an organisation of labour that covers and has amongst its members people who are employed as employees, people who are employed as casual employees, people who are employed as part-time employees, and people who are employed as owner-operators - sometimes referred to as independent contractors.
There were a range of bases for dealing with the aspirations of that disparate group of people within the transport industry. In relation to those people whom some refer to as independent contractors, when they acted in a singular manner, that is, when there was a single issue affecting one single owner-driver or owner-operator or independent contractor, it was generally felt that the most appropriate way to resolve the differences in the dispute was in direct negotiation, one on one, between the single independent contractor and the employer.
However, a different situation arose where you found that a group of independent contractors operating in the same industry or similar industries had a dispute about the basis upon which their contractual obligations were supposed to be met or altered according to the particular circumstances of that workplace. When that situation occurred, the most appropriate form of resolution of the dispute was not to walk out the door, not to spit the dummy, not to walk away from their responsibilities, but to allow them to be jointly represented on the issues associated with their independent contracts and, in general, to proceed to arbitration. That was facilitated by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on most occasions and, may I say, quite successfully as far as the attitudes of the employers and the independent contractors were concerned.
In New South Wales, we have a situation where independent contractors are able to be represented before the State Industrial Commission. That commission has recently been involved in arbitration on exactly this issue.
Mrs Carnell: Why, Mr Lamont?
MR LAMONT: For a very simple reason. It is seen as being appropriate, where a dispute exists between independent contractors as a collective group and their employer, to have it resolved by an independent third party. My understanding about the process for conciliation in New South Wales is that it is not dissimilar to the contractual obligation that in 1987 the VMOs signed in the ACT, which said that when there is a dispute they will agree to go to conciliation.
Where do we now find ourselves? We find ourselves in a position where the people opposite in this chamber have not been interested at all in seeking a resolution.
Mrs Carnell: I said that I would do it for them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .