Defining Industrial Action

Breen Creighton, Catrina Denvir, Shae McCrystal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Unions engaged in enterprise bargaining under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) frequently exhibit considerable creativity in the forms of industrial action they take in order to pressurise employers to make concessions in bargaining. Examples of such conduct can include sending emails with the Caps Lock function turned on, wearing union campaign clothing or insignia whilst at work, and communicating with clients and customers of the target employer about the employees’ industrial campaign.This creativity is pushing the definition of ‘industrial action’ in s 19 of the FW Act to its outer limits. This is important due to the fact that many aspects of the bargaining regime established under the FW Act turn upon whether particular conduct falls within the statutory definition. These include provisions concerning the lawfulness or otherwise of industrial action; access to orders to stop or prevent unprotected industrial action; payment of wages for periods when employees are engaging in industrial action; and employers’ capacity to stand down employees without pay where they cannot usefully be employed because of industrial action which does not involve the employer or its employees. This article traces the current definition back to its origins in the system of conciliation and arbitration that operated in Australia throughout most of the 20th century. That system treated all industrial action as unlawful at statute and/or common law. The definition has not been significantly changed since the replacement of that system by one based on enterprise based bargaining, accompanied by limited recognition of the capacity lawfully to take industrial action in the course of such bargaining. Reviewing the current definition and its practical operation in its social, historical, and international context, the article concludes that the definition is not ‘fit for purpose’, and proposes that it should be revised in order better to accord with the purposes of the legislation and with the bargaining regime it establishes.
LanguageEnglish
Pages383-414
JournalFederal Law Review
Volume45
Issue number3
Early online date3 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 3 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

industrial action
employer
employee
act
creativity
campaign
regime
arbitration
common law
concession
clothing
statute
wage
customer
legislation

Keywords

  • Unions
  • Law
  • Industrial Action
  • Strike
  • Employment

Cite this

Creighton, Breen ; Denvir, Catrina ; McCrystal, Shae. / Defining Industrial Action. In: Federal Law Review. 2017 ; Vol. 45, No. 3. pp. 383-414.
@article{26537752c850472183aff12ca483bf79,
title = "Defining Industrial Action",
abstract = "Unions engaged in enterprise bargaining under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) frequently exhibit considerable creativity in the forms of industrial action they take in order to pressurise employers to make concessions in bargaining. Examples of such conduct can include sending emails with the Caps Lock function turned on, wearing union campaign clothing or insignia whilst at work, and communicating with clients and customers of the target employer about the employees’ industrial campaign.This creativity is pushing the definition of ‘industrial action’ in s 19 of the FW Act to its outer limits. This is important due to the fact that many aspects of the bargaining regime established under the FW Act turn upon whether particular conduct falls within the statutory definition. These include provisions concerning the lawfulness or otherwise of industrial action; access to orders to stop or prevent unprotected industrial action; payment of wages for periods when employees are engaging in industrial action; and employers’ capacity to stand down employees without pay where they cannot usefully be employed because of industrial action which does not involve the employer or its employees. This article traces the current definition back to its origins in the system of conciliation and arbitration that operated in Australia throughout most of the 20th century. That system treated all industrial action as unlawful at statute and/or common law. The definition has not been significantly changed since the replacement of that system by one based on enterprise based bargaining, accompanied by limited recognition of the capacity lawfully to take industrial action in the course of such bargaining. Reviewing the current definition and its practical operation in its social, historical, and international context, the article concludes that the definition is not ‘fit for purpose’, and proposes that it should be revised in order better to accord with the purposes of the legislation and with the bargaining regime it establishes.",
keywords = "Unions, Law, Industrial Action, Strike, Employment",
author = "Breen Creighton and Catrina Denvir and Shae McCrystal",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "3",
doi = "10.22145/flr.45.3.2",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "383--414",
journal = "Federal Law Review",
issn = "0067-205X",
number = "3",

}

Creighton, B, Denvir, C & McCrystal, S 2017, 'Defining Industrial Action', Federal Law Review, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 383-414. https://doi.org/10.22145/flr.45.3.2

Defining Industrial Action. / Creighton, Breen; Denvir, Catrina; McCrystal, Shae.

In: Federal Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 3, 03.11.2017, p. 383-414.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Defining Industrial Action

AU - Creighton, Breen

AU - Denvir, Catrina

AU - McCrystal, Shae

PY - 2017/11/3

Y1 - 2017/11/3

N2 - Unions engaged in enterprise bargaining under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) frequently exhibit considerable creativity in the forms of industrial action they take in order to pressurise employers to make concessions in bargaining. Examples of such conduct can include sending emails with the Caps Lock function turned on, wearing union campaign clothing or insignia whilst at work, and communicating with clients and customers of the target employer about the employees’ industrial campaign.This creativity is pushing the definition of ‘industrial action’ in s 19 of the FW Act to its outer limits. This is important due to the fact that many aspects of the bargaining regime established under the FW Act turn upon whether particular conduct falls within the statutory definition. These include provisions concerning the lawfulness or otherwise of industrial action; access to orders to stop or prevent unprotected industrial action; payment of wages for periods when employees are engaging in industrial action; and employers’ capacity to stand down employees without pay where they cannot usefully be employed because of industrial action which does not involve the employer or its employees. This article traces the current definition back to its origins in the system of conciliation and arbitration that operated in Australia throughout most of the 20th century. That system treated all industrial action as unlawful at statute and/or common law. The definition has not been significantly changed since the replacement of that system by one based on enterprise based bargaining, accompanied by limited recognition of the capacity lawfully to take industrial action in the course of such bargaining. Reviewing the current definition and its practical operation in its social, historical, and international context, the article concludes that the definition is not ‘fit for purpose’, and proposes that it should be revised in order better to accord with the purposes of the legislation and with the bargaining regime it establishes.

AB - Unions engaged in enterprise bargaining under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) frequently exhibit considerable creativity in the forms of industrial action they take in order to pressurise employers to make concessions in bargaining. Examples of such conduct can include sending emails with the Caps Lock function turned on, wearing union campaign clothing or insignia whilst at work, and communicating with clients and customers of the target employer about the employees’ industrial campaign.This creativity is pushing the definition of ‘industrial action’ in s 19 of the FW Act to its outer limits. This is important due to the fact that many aspects of the bargaining regime established under the FW Act turn upon whether particular conduct falls within the statutory definition. These include provisions concerning the lawfulness or otherwise of industrial action; access to orders to stop or prevent unprotected industrial action; payment of wages for periods when employees are engaging in industrial action; and employers’ capacity to stand down employees without pay where they cannot usefully be employed because of industrial action which does not involve the employer or its employees. This article traces the current definition back to its origins in the system of conciliation and arbitration that operated in Australia throughout most of the 20th century. That system treated all industrial action as unlawful at statute and/or common law. The definition has not been significantly changed since the replacement of that system by one based on enterprise based bargaining, accompanied by limited recognition of the capacity lawfully to take industrial action in the course of such bargaining. Reviewing the current definition and its practical operation in its social, historical, and international context, the article concludes that the definition is not ‘fit for purpose’, and proposes that it should be revised in order better to accord with the purposes of the legislation and with the bargaining regime it establishes.

KW - Unions

KW - Law

KW - Industrial Action

KW - Strike

KW - Employment

UR - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.22145/flr.45.3.2

UR - https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fedlr45&id=387&collection=journals&index=

U2 - 10.22145/flr.45.3.2

DO - 10.22145/flr.45.3.2

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 383

EP - 414

JO - Federal Law Review

T2 - Federal Law Review

JF - Federal Law Review

SN - 0067-205X

IS - 3

ER -