When five Queensland clergymen contrived to get themselves
arrested on a Brisbane picket line in opposition to the
Queensland Premier's anti-strike legislation, their claim
was that they were protesting against a morally repugnant
law which ordinary citizens were therefore entitled to
disobey.
With more zeal than discretion, one of them reportedly took
a cross on to the picket line, presumably to symbolise that
his sufferings were, in some way, united with those of
Christ on Calvary.
One might discern a certain disproportion between the discomfort he experienced from arrest, even by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's police force, and that experienced by Christ from the Roman soldiery on Golgotha. Still, a symbol is a symbol.
Archbishop Runcie and the Christian clergymen in question
defended an important principle in stating that the right to
withhold one's labour - or to strike - is a natural right
which Christianity has long proclaimed and defended. That is
both true, and worth re-stating.
However, it was surprising that they made no reference to
the equally well-established Christian principle that there
is no such thing as an absolute right, that rights are
always balanced by concomitant responsibilities, and that
the exercise of such a right is governed by the condition
that its exercise does not occasion greater harm than that
which it is designed to prevent. The group of Catholic
priests who contributed to The Australian's letters page
(April 19) emphasised the first part of Catholic social
teaching in the matter of strikes, but refrained from
mentioning the point made by Pope John Paul II: "While
admitting that it is a legitimate means, we must at the same
time emphasise that a strike remains, in a sense, an extreme
means. It must not be abused: it must not be abused
especially for political purposes. Furthermore, it must
never be forgotten that when essential community services
are in question, they must in every case be ensured, if
necessary, by means of appropriate legislation."
The purpose of industrial law is to establish a careful
balance between individual rights and community
responsibilities.
The difficulty of reconciling rights and responsibilities
has been illustrated on a number of recent occasions.
The original Queensland power stoppages (from which the
present conflict originated) cost the people of Queensland
an estimated $1000 million. More important, they were
undertaken in the heat of a Queensland summer. They were
called with total disregard of climatic conditions because
that was the moment of greatest advantage. The observed
result was many jobs lost, businesses closed down, house
fires, and widespread suffering to the aged, the sick, and
mothers of young children.
Were these original stoppages morally justified? If not, why
was there no protest?
The Australian community as a whole has recently suffered
heavy losses as a result of the Commonwealth Public Service
strike, led by Administrative and Clerical Officers
Association (ACOA). The issue was a claim for an 8% wage
increase. The Federal Labor Government, and the Arbitration
Commission, even the ACTU, would not support it because it
was outside the Accord. The method used by the strikers was
to cut off the flow of millions of dollars to the Federal
Government, from taxes, import duties, and similar charges
to force it to come to heel. Was that strike justified in
its underlying claim? Were the methods used morally
permissible? If not, why was there no protest?
During the recent visit of the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr
Nakasone, to Australia, vital coal shipments to Japan were
held up and over 20 vessels kept at anchor in NSW harbours
as a result of a rail strike over a manning issue. The claim
was not only repudiated by all relevant arbitral authorities
but was condemned by the Labor State Premier, Mr Wran. Mines
were closed. Jobs were lost. No damages for loss were
available either to owners or miners. The Japanese looked
elsewhere for sources of supply. Was a strike on the manning
issue justified in the light of the obvious consequences? If
not, why was there no protest?
A little more than a week ago, the trustees of the Melbourne
Cricket Club were compelled to capitulate to Mr Norm
Gallagher and the Builders Labourers Federation and to pay
builders' labourers an extra $85 per week - yes, $85 per
week - plus certain other "perks" over and above the award.
The firm which originally carried the electricity pylons to
the Melbourne Cricket Grounds has been driven out of
business by BLF black bans, and has had to be bought out by
the State Government. Both Federal and State Labor
Governments, however hypocritically, condemned the
continuous course of blackmail but did nothing about it. Was
this astronomical breach of the Accord justified? If not,
why was there no protest?
If Christian clergymen claim to take a stand on moral rather
than political grounds, their dedication to morality should
be seen to be general rather than particular.
However, recriminations are as useless as debating points.
What matters is that men of goodwill should combine to
devise a legal system which will balance industrial rights
and community responsibilities. This involves much more than
simply asserting that there is a right to strike.
One such system is Australia's traditional arbitration
system. It can function only if the original sanctions for
breach of award - destroyed at the time of the O'Shea affair
in 1969 - are accepted by both parties. Would the unions
accept this? What counsel would the Christian clergymen
provide to ensure that the community's interests are
preserved?
If enforceable arbitration is not acceptable to the unions,
an alternative system would be one in which unions,
employers and governments entered into legally enforceable
contracts covering wages and working conditions with damages
for breach by either side. Would the unions accept this?
What counsel would the Christian clergymen provide to ensure
that the community's interests are preserved?
A totally separate aspect of any fair and just legal system
governing industrial relations must surely be that those who
are not parties to a dispute, but whose interests are
seriously damaged by it - whether victims of secondary
boycotts or independent contractors - should be entitled to
compensation. Basic principles of justice must guard their
interests as well as those of the parties directly involved.
Unfortunately, little assistance can be expected from the
ACTU in these matters. Not only has it consistently sought
the repeal of Section 45 (d) of the Trade Practices Act but
it has also sought legislation to remove the right to
damages in common law for loss sustained through industrial
action. In other words, it has sought to remove union action
from the purview of law altogether. The ACTU's position as a
responsible participant in these matters has been further
devalued by its policy towards the BLF.
When a large part of the trade union movement (including
communist-led unions) wished to see the BLF disaffiliated as
well as deregistered because of its violence against workers
as well as employers, it was the ACTU which prevented either
happening.
The Christian churches would render a valuable contribution
to discussion of a critical issue if they turned their minds
to the balance of justice between rights and
responsibilities. One-sided emphasis on rights without
regard to responsibilities will simply do damage to the
reputation of the churches.
| « NEXT » | « Human Rights » | « Main Contents » | « Home » |