It would be in the nation’s interest for the workplace relations bill proposed by the federal government to be split allowing for the non-controversial parts to pass while more time be allocated on harmful aspects such as multi-employer bargaining and other workplace issues.
The numerous amendments now being proposed by federal government to its own bill proves the controversial changes must be given longer consideration.
While the MCA welcomes the government’s announcement that it will make amendments to the bill, they do not go far enough to address the severe unintended consequences the bill will have on the mining industry. These include:
- roping businesses in to large, inflexible multi-employer agreements that they have not agreed to participate in
- increased industrial disputes that could spread across whole supply chains and industries
- reduced productivity that will lead to poor outcomes for investment, jobs and wages.
The amendments also acknowledge drafting errors the government has made due to the rushed process for consideration of the bill.
The MCA remains concerned that the bill may include further significant errors and consequences that have not been fully thought through, and urges the government to agree to extend the time frame for its review.
The MCA would also like to address statements the government made yesterday in the media in which they were factually incorrect in saying that ‘most mines would already have in-term enterprise agreements’, ‘mining overwhelmingly is a situation where you already have agreements in place’ and ‘wherever an agreement is already in place you’re unaffected (by multi-employer bargaining)’.
Only 40 per cent of mining workers are covered by enterprise agreements, 59 per cent are on individual agreements on terms that are better than both awards and enterprise agreements, and just 1 per cent are on award conditions.
Moreover, the 40 per cent of the workforce that rely on enterprise agreements for their pay and conditions includes agreements that are past their nominal expiry date, but where the expired agreement continues to determining worker’s wages and conditions.
Under the government’s changes, when an agreement passes its nominal expiry date, the employer will be exposed to multi-employer bargaining (even though the agreement is in force). This means that mines representing 60 per cent of the mining workforce would still be exposed to multi-employer bargaining under the government’s changes.
The fact that an agreement is past its nominal expiry date does not mean the agreement is not working and should be opened up to multi-employer bargaining. It usually means the agreement is mature and reflects a balance between the workers and the employer that has developed over many negotiations.
