THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 25, 1984. Conflict at Marsden Point

Press, 25 May 1984, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 25, 1984. Conflict at Marsden Point

Well might the Minister of Labour, Mr Bolger, voice his concern at the latest illegal actions of workers at the Marsden Point oil refinery expansion site; but the time for dismayed tuttutting is past. The Minister has considerable powers to persuade the unions to observe the law and, in this instance, he should use them. Delays, strikes, stoppages, and go-slows have plagued the project almost from the day that it began. Although accidents have played a part, most of the costly disruption has been attributable directly to industrial strife. By no means has the fault for this lain clearly with one party or another. Workers, employers, and the Government would all have to shoulder some of the responsibility for this sad history. On this occasion, however, the 3000 workers who walked off the site on Wednesday for a five-day week-end are cocking a snook at the High Court, and not for the first time. Such a response may be wholly predictable; even so, they should not be allowed to do so with impunity. In the past, the workers and their representatives have disregarded the rulings of the Arbitration Court, and have not sustained their assurances and guarantees that they would follow the proper procedures for disputes. Their disruptions have contributed to the soaring cost of the expansion — now put at $1650 million, compared with the original estimate of $350 million. They also further delay the savings that the refinery should make possible. The strikers are challenging directly an order of the High Court that they should work alongside eight scaffolders who would not join a ban on Saturday overtime. During an earlier strike in protest at the scaffolders’ reluctance to observe the ban, the eight men obtained an interim injunction from the High Court that directed the Marsden Point work-force to return to work. The injunction remains in force. The work-force at Marsden Point remained on

strike until the employing company agreed to refuse to admit the eight men to the site. This, in turn, led to the company being found guilty of contempt of court and readmitting the men to the site; whereupon the 3000 other workers walked off. This is where matters stand idle — at a cost of almost $1 million a day. The affair may have the hallmarks of farce; it may appear to be an internal union squabble that has got out of hand and been raised absurdly to the heights of national importance. From whichever point it is viewed, the central issue has now become whether the Marsden Point work-force can ignore the law. A public heartily sick of the industrial strife at Marsden Point can condemn the latest inanity as roundly as have Mr Bolger or his Cabinet colleagues. The difference is that Mr Bolger and his colleagues are supposed to be in a position to do something about it. The question remains: what can be done to ensure a productive outcome? Assuming the political willingness to act, or expecting further court processes, will not prescribe exactly what should be done, or what may succeed. Imposing penalties on hundreds, or thousands, of union members is no assurance of a return to work, or of their paying the penalties. Seeking a penalty against unions and union funds may ensure that the penalty is paid; but it is no certain way to get the job going again. On one score, at least, the union members should be persuasively informed. They expect the protection of the law; they expect awards to be enforced; they assume that employers who transgress will pay a penalty or mend their ways. The Marsden Point employees should also expect the law to apply to employees as well. If more of them appreciated the need for the protection afforded by the law to themselves, more might accept the need to observe it when it touches themselves. This would make penalties unnecessary.