The next step was securing replacement labour. The first scheme involved the covert recruitment and training of former and serving military personnel. They were contracted by a company called Fynwest, and were destined to be trained on a dock leased in Dubai. However, a tip-off led to exposure as the recruits departed and the MUA brought international pressure to bear so that access to the docks was denied and the scheme failed. Whilst the government denied involvement at the time, evidence demonstrates conclusively the high level of government orchestration which was prevalent in these events. The second scheme involved the National

The events following the dismissal are well known due to their pervasive media coverage. The MUA instituted a picket preventing egress or ingress at the docks to hamper Patricks’ attempts to start operations with PCS labour. These pickets attracted massive public support and swelled in size as the dispute continued despite Supreme Court orders against them. Indeed, the inability of Patricks’ customers to reach the docks was not factored in as it was believed police action would ensure access. However, the size of gatherings militated against any operation and moreover, it has been suggested the police were reticent to act due to sympathy with the union.

Farmers Federation (NFF), long time staunch opponents of the MUA, establishing Producers and Consumer Stevedores (PCS). This organisation would sublease Webb Dock No. 5 from Patricks to train an alternative workforce. This plan was carried into effect from January 28 1998 when security guards locked out the unionised workforce and from February 23 1998, training commenced.

Perhaps most importantly, the government’s actions were forever portrayed as economically necessary. A massive public relations campaign painted unionised workers as bludgers on high, ill-gained salaries with their removal the key to waterfront reform. Yet both the aforementioned reports identified a myriad of problems, beside labour, besetting the waterfront. Central among these were the closed nature of the industry with only two main stevedoring firms who experienced little compulsion to compete, the dispersed nature of Australian ports meaning a number of loading points, and the low volume of trade actually handled meaning economies of scale achieved overseas were not possible here. Moreover, some Australian ports exceeded the international benchmark and it is mainly imports that enter Australia through container terminals, whilst exports are shipped through bulk terminals, of which Australia’s are among the most efficient despite union labour.

On 7 April 1998 Patricks dismissed its workforce of 1400 permanent employees and 300 part-time employees. Its actions had been precipitated by MUA action in the AIRC, which, in anticipation of the sacking, sought an undertaking that this would not occ

Some topics in this essay:
Benchmark Objectives, Federal Court, Australia MUA, Coalition Labor, Moreover Australian, Patricks MUA, Freedom Association, MUA North, Court Indeed, Imposition Act, industrial relations, unionised workforce, industrial action, federal court, government’s actions, freedom association provisions, patricks sought, ascendant neo-liberal, waterfront dispute, massive public, 1998 patricks,