Policing of Industrial Action in Australia Essay

Throughout history, protests in Australian sop up been swanled in many different ways by respective patrol fiercenesss. recital suggests that the guard in industrial trashs in Australia atomic number 18 not politically inert and unchangingly dole out the attitude of the employer and the disposal. This will be critically accessed and examples will be looked at to support the fact that while traditionally law have taken the side of employers in to sidereal days modern world the law are acting much and more as neutral bodies in industrial disputes by keeping the sereneness. First, the Clunes rampage will be looked at in which we will see an clear side with the employer also seen in the 1928 waterfront dispute, which will follow. The APPM dispute will then(prenominal) be looked at followed by the 1998 waterfront dispute and it will be seen that policing of industrial disorder has in fact changed and legal philosophyd are acting more as neutral peacekeepers.The role th e jurisprudence in controlling unlawful behaivour on a spotter line has never has been clearly defined. For the same reason, which makes costs averse to interfere with industrial disputes the constabulary, have been reluctant to appear to be side with one side or the some other even in chance of clearly unlawful behaivour. (Willis 2000133) In celestial latitude 1873 however, build up guard intervened in an industrial dispute at Lothair Mine Clunes to assist in go the strike. The miners had gone on strike for improved wages and working conditions. ein truth last(predicate) work at the mine had stopped for fourteen weeks and the mine directors everywherely action to hear the strike by introducing Chinese labour. On declination 9, five coaches loaded with Chinese miners traveled from Ballarat to Clunes with an escort of siseteen armed practice of law (Haldane 199576). The convoy was met by two thousand protestors who had erected barricades and armed themselves with br ickbats. What followed was an misdemeanour on many of the Chinese strike disturbanceers and a number of constabulary officers. (Haldane 199576)It was later on argued by the Ballarat courier (cited in Baker 1999C5) that the Lothair directors alone should have been trusty for conveying the Chinese and should not have involved the legal philosophy. According to the Ballarat Courier, principal(prenominal) Commissioner Standish of the Melbourne Club was too close with the Government and the directors of family, which conducted in the use of guard for the Lothair mines needs. (Ballarat Courier cited in Baker 1999C5)The anticipate (cited in Baker 2001A28) claimed, The art of police squelch is to preserve the peace and not to provoke a breach of it. However, the police at Clunes no entirely escorted the foreigners but sought to personnel a way for them. The Herald argued police as spectators are instructed to a lower place no circumstances whatsoever to appear as partisans in strikes and are told not to interfere on one side or the other until a breach of the peace is committed. (Baker 2001A28) In the Clunes strikes, this was definitely not the case.The Herald (cited in Baker 2001A28) maintains that the great mistake of the police was they took the law into their let hands and sought to force the men off the road and the police should merely have used the law to punish those off blockadeers who had placed an hindrance on the public highway.As it bum be seen in the Clunes case, the police were not politically neutral and did take the side of the employer and government. This was a result of the police commissioner rumored to be in cohorts with the government and the Lothian mines themselves.An instance similar to that of the Clunes strikes was the 1928 loading dock disputes. In 1928, an a state of ward was imposed by the government saveable to the industrial insurance of the Federal Government but not to the workers consequently the Waterside Worker s compact (WWF) rejected it. By 11 September, ninety ships around the major ports lay out idle. Victorian Labor Premier Hogan promised that his government would provide every security system to volunteer workers (Baker 1999C9). To accommodate this one hundred and fifty extra police from the country were stationed at the waterfront. (Baker 1999C10)On 2 November, special trains transporting volunteers from Flinders Street to set Pier, Port Melbourne, were blocked by sleepers and metal bars and objects with 2000 angry meatists waiting for their arrival. What ensued was a brutal dispute between unions and police. (Baker 1999C10)James Morris, a unionist, persuaded the strikers to progress the pier to avoid clashes but Sub-Inspector Mossop struck him time and time over again. Most watersiders had left the pier but the police viciously attacked the stragglers with batons and boots. (Age cited in Baker 1999C10) Some of the crowd started to throw stones and police retaliated by shoot into the crowd. (Baker 1999C10). Allan Whittaker and two wounded watersiders were been shot in the back and Whittaker died because of a smoke wound to the neck inflicted by police. (Baker 1999C11). The actions of the police that day received honorable government support, which meant that the actions never received any official scrutiny. (Baker 1999C12)As it can be seen in the case of the 1928 waterfront dispute, the police were used by the government and employers to accomplish the breaking up of the dispute. This was seen with the commendation of the police actions by the government and no enquiry into police actions even after a fate had occurred.Traditionally, as it has been seen in the Clunes riots and the 1928 waterfront dispute Australian police have right away complied in an aggressive and forceful manner to employer demands for police intervention in order to facilitate access to workplaces.Police actions have usually been swift, decisive, unbending and ruthless (Baker 1999A40). This however was not the case at the APPM dispute and during the 1998 Waterfront.Associated anatomy and Paper Mill (APPM) dominated the industrial city of Burnie in 1992 in northwest Tasmania and was the territorial dominions largest employer of 1100 people. APPM because of a declining pulp and paper industry was taken over by North Broken Hill holding Ltd (NBH) in 1984 with its home and powerbrokers mainly in Melbourne. (Baker 20026) Restructuring had been occurring since 1989 and for North Broken Hill-Peko, the Burnie workforce appeared too booming and was restructuring too slowly. (Baker 2001B65) A dispute en indeeded after the directors enforced a non-union policy among other things in dealing with the workers.The police at Burnie under the agency by two senior officers Inspector Fox and Senior serjeant-at-law Timmerman were determined to remain neutral about the dispute but this was comprehend by the company as passive and unacceptable (Baker 2001B66). Fox aph orism his duty as foremost one of preserving the peace in the Burnie district. He publicly stated that his intention was to intervene only when a disobedience of state laws made it necessary. The Fox philosophy of policing remained consistent throughout the dispute, his believed that no industrial dispute is really a police emergence. For two months, the Burnie police maintained the peace. (Baker 2001B67)Police previously had willingly blotto piquets for NBH in Pilbara in 1986 but in the case of the APPM dispute, they took a very different approach. APPMs industrial strategist John Guest exposit the police action at Burnie as weak. (Baker 2002 9). Police resistance pull out the picketers was a major obstacle to NBH-Peko reforms. Baker (200210) states that by failing to break the picket, police were giving tacit support and pseudo legitimacy to union rights to organise and maintain a 24-hour picket around the mills six and a half kilometer perimeter.On the 23 whitethorn the APPM management, in an unprecedented move served a writ of mandamus on the Tasmanian Police Commissioner. APPM management were angry that police had neglected the companys business interests and claimed that police failed to protect public property to and to avail workers who wished to go about their normal daily business. (Baker 200210).Forty-one people were arrested in a day of violent clashes between police and picketers on the day after Wright handed down the judgment that required the police to take action. (Collins cited in Baker 1999B127). Baker (1999B127) states, The general expectation of many employers is that police will react if necessary, forcefully and repressively in order to clear picket lines. North Broken Hill-Peko was openly acting under this expectation when it demanded that the police break the picket lines during the APPM dispute and when this did not happen sourced alternative convey to get the job done (Baker 1999B127)As it can be seen with the APPM dispute the police were not on the side of the employer or the government, instead they support the union in their peaceful demonstration against the APPM. This can be seen with the obvious criticism of police by the employers at APPM and the admiration of the union demonstrators. dismantle though the police did eventually interfere in the dispute it was as a result of a court injunction and it can be argued that if the injunction was not served the police would have probably not have interfered. It should be noted that even after the police interfered they were still prize by the media and union officials, which has not been the case in previous disputes. It was simply seen the police were acting out of their own control in the matter in question.A similar example of non-intervention policing was seen during the Waterfront dispute between Patricks Stevedoring and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) .Police cooperation with the MUA started at the State Police Commissioners yearbook confe rence in Melbourne. Invoking police discretion the police commissioners advocated to all ranks that the quiet non-confrontational approach instead of aggressive and belligerent tactics. Physical contact of the wharves is promising to lead to violence and perhaps serious injury to participants and police and thus it was desired to be avoided at all costs. (Baker 1999B137) After the Commissioners communiqu, on that point was no further attempt by police to remove picket lines around Australian ports. (Baker 1999B137)In the maritime dispute, police command hierarchies unheeded and even ignored requests from employers and the Prime Minister to take action against the MUA pickets. (Baker 1999A40). The Australian Federal Police also declared that its members would refuse government directions to force them to act as strikebreakers on the waterfront and they would only act to keep the peace and maintain order. (Baker 200033)Patricks Chairman Chris Corrigan scorned the Polices inertia in the face of illegal community protest and time delaying. (Speech 16 March 1999 cited in Baker 1999A47). Corrigan like NBH appeared to have had the traditional given that if the employer demands the police intervention to clear passage that police will by nature agree without consideration of the consequences (Baker 1999A47). Unlike the suppression of the stevedores in 1928 however, during the 1998 waterfront dispute the police were praised by union officials but criticised by the employer. Victorian Police Commissioner Comrie refused to be pushed into using excessive force. He criticised Corrigans view of the force and verbalize Business people and others should stick to their business and leader the policing strategies to us (Courier escape cited in Baker 1999B134). Patricks ultimately blamed their eventual buck on the pickets and on police forces, which, they claimed, had been too passive in retort to picketers (McConville 2000399)Ultimately, the negotiations between the protestors and unions compromised the traditional police culture, which meant that the employer merely needed to contact police who would clear the pickets by either persuasion or force. (Baker 1999A46). Hubbard (2000141) there was a determination of operational command to be seen as independent of the government.As it can be seen in the case of the waterfront dispute, the police were not on side with the employers and government and were instead bipartisan observers of the dispute and keepers of the peace. In this case, police repeatedly ignored requests from both Patricks and the Howard government to intervene in the dispute this may possibly have been a result of a determination to be seen as independent of the government. The bipartisan role of the police was also seen with the criticism by the employers and not by the union officials, which in past has been the case.It has been seen historically the policing of industrial disputes has not been politically neutral as the police consistently took the side of the employer and government. This was seen with the strike at Clunes where albeit unsuccessfully the police tried to assist the employer by escorting strikebreakers into the town of Clunes. This was clearly a side with the employer. It was also seen with the 1928 wharf dispute when the aggressive and fatal actions of the police to break up the dispute was condemned by the unions and supported by the government wholeheartedly.However, in todays modern society the policing of industrial disputes politically neutral and do not consistently take the side of employers and the government. This was seen with the APPM dispute where police tried to stay neutral in the disorder and accommodate the peaceful protest but were ultimately ordered by a court injunction to take action against the strikers. The political neutrality was also seen with the 1998 Waterfront altercate where police were strictly against interfering even after numerous requests by government a nd the employer and in the end, the high court ruled in favour of the union members. Traditionally police have sided with government and the employer but as we are moving into more modern times the police force are becoming more neutral in industrial disputes only intervening when a clear breach of law had ensued.ReferencesBaker. D (1999A), Avoiding war on the wharves Is the non-confrontational policing of major industrial disputes here to stay?, International exercise Relations Review Vol.5 No.2 p39-62Baker. D (1999B), flock unionism and the policing accord control and self-regulation of picketing during the 1998 Maritime dispute, Labour and Industry Vol.9 No.3 April 1999 p123-144Baker. D (1999C) Barricades and Batons A Historical place of the Policing of Major Industrial Disorder in Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology December 1999Baker. D (2000) The Evolving Paradox of Police Unionism Employees or Officers, in Trade unions 2000 Retrospect and prospect, National Key centre in Industrial transaction Monash UniversityBaker. D (2001A), Policing the 1873 Lothair mines dispute at Clunes in Work-organisation-struggle Australian Society for the read of Labour History, Canberra Regional Branch, p26-33Baker. D (2001B) The Fusion of Picketing, Policing and populace devote Theory within the Industrial Relations Context of the 1992 APPM brawl. Australian bare of Labor Vol.27 No.1 MarchBaker. D (2002), Changing Australian Prototype of Policing, Pickets, and Public Order, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice Vol.26 No.1 2002 p1-28Haldane. R (1995) The Peoples Force, A History of the Victoria Police, 2nd ed, Melbourne University Press Carlton South VicHubbard. L (2000) The MUA Dispute Turning Industrial Relations into Community Relations, Just policy Advocacy and Social Action September 2000Mcconville. C (2000) The Australian Waterfront Dispute 1998, Politics & Society, Vol. 28 No. 3, September 2000 393-412 Sage Publication s, Inc.Willis. J (2000) Is this the end of the Line? A review of picketing in the new millennium, AMPIJWiseman, J (1998), present to stay? The 1997-1998 Australian waterfront dispute and its implications, Labour and Industry Vol.9 No.1 August 1998