Bills Digest No. 101 2002-03
Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory
Union Fees) Bill 2002 [No. 2]
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Conclusion
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Workplace Relations Amendment
(Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill 2002 [No.
2]
Date Introduced:
4 December 2002
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Employment and Workplace
Relations
Commencement:
28 Days after the Act
receives Royal Assent
Purpose
The purpose of
the Bill is to prevent collective agreements certified under the
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the WR Act) containing
provisions which require the payment of bargaining service fees to
the trade union which is party to the agreement. The Bill also
prohibits conduct designed to force the payment of such fees. On
the other hand, the Bill does not prevent the voluntary
contribution of such 'fees' by non-members to unions. Also, the
Bill allows employer associations and unions to charge bargaining
fees where such fees have been arranged under a contract for
services.
In Parliamentary Library publication
Bargaining Fees and Workplace Agreements, a bargaining fee
was described as
a charge made for the negotiation of a workplace
agreement. They are not dissimilar to fees charged by professionals
such as solicitors (or accountants). In the federal jurisdiction, a
workplace agreement may take a variety of forms (certified
agreements and Australian Workplace Agreements). In the course of
negotiating such an agreement, an employer may be charged a fee by
a bargaining agent, as may an employee or a group of
employees.(1)
As is reported below, the current Bill differs
from the predecessor Bill (as initially introduced
to the House of Representatives) due to the inclusion of items
which reflect the provision of bargaining services, specifically by
ensuring that fees for bargaining services charged, for example, to
employers by employer organisations, are not rendered invalid by
provisions in this Bill.
Since the Bill sets out to prohibit 'compulsory
union fees', it is helpful to commence discussion with reference to
a more broad definition of a bargaining fee and one that
comprehends the possible gamut of arrangements rather than the sole
focus on a union charging a non-unionist a fee, which the title of
this Bill implies.
This is the third Bill seeking to prohibit the
payment of bargaining fees to unions using the device of a
provision of a certified agreement to implement the charge. The
Government terms such fees levied by unions against non-unionists
as 'compulsory union fees' as often it may be cheaper for the
employee to join the union rather than pay the fee.
The inclusion of bargaining services fees in
union-negotiated certified agreements was discussed in Bills
Digest No.2 2001-2002. That Digest addressed the first Bill
prohibiting bargaining services fees, the
Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union
Fees) Bill 2001. That Bill failed to pass the Senate, with
debate adjourned on 6 August 2001.
Following the November 2001 federal election,
the Government introduced the
Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union
Fees) Bill 2002 to the House of Representatives on 20 February
2002 (the predecessor to the current Bill). The Bill was reviewed
in Bills
Digest No.108 2001-2002. As is discussed below in more detail,
the predecessor Bill was laid aside on 18 September 2002, following
the Government's rejection of Senate amendments. Since 1999, the
question of whether certified agreements may contain a bargaining
fee provision has been reviewed by the Australian Industrial
Relations Commission (AIRC) and the Federal Court (to some extent).
It is thus useful to canvass these recent developments.
From the previous Bills Digests, the following
background to the adoption of bargaining fees by unions can be
condensed in the following points:
-
- In June 2000 the ACTU Congress endorsed a policy that member
unions may seek to insert a 'fee for service' clause in new
certified agreements (CAs), under which a negotiating fee would be
levied on those for whom the union had negotiated a section
170LJ agreement. (Section 170LJ agreements are one form of CA
permitted under the WR Act).
-
- Bargaining fees would prevent non-unionists 'free riding' on
members. A number of unions became acquainted with the inclusion of
such fees in US and Canadian collective agreements to eliminate the
free-rider problem, following overseas study tours in the
1990s.
-
- Certain unions then sought to recover the expenses involved
with enterprise bargaining by charging a fee to non-members. In
some cases a provision of the agreement itself provided for the
payment of the fee, usually via deduction from pay, on other
occasions by direct invoice.
-
- Where a CA contained a bargaining fee provision, the policy
could be justified on the basis that under section
170LT of the WR Act, all employees bound by the agreement are
required to approve it, usually by a ballot, and section170MDA
prevents the CA discriminating between unionists and
non-unionists.
-
- However, the use of bargaining fees in CAs was opposed by the
Federal Government which viewed the use of these fees as a de facto
compulsory union membership fee, with recourse to their imposition
being prompted primarily by the fall in union membership.
-
- In 2000, the Employment Advocate (EA) intervened in the
certification process of a number of agreements negotiated by the
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information,
Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union (CEPU, its electrical
division sometimes referred to as the ETU). These contained
provisions for the levying of these fees (set at 1 per cent of
employee's salary or $500 pa whichever the greater).
-
- The EA argued that these agreements contained an 'objectionable
provision' in contravention of subsection 170LU(2A),
because the provision required conduct allegedly violating the
'freedom of association' provisions of the WR Act (Part
XA). (It is helpful to understand these provisions are supposed
to prevent coercion to associate, meaning not to join (usually) a
union, as well as preventing conduct preventing employees from
joining unions, ie allowing them freedom to join or
associate).
-
- The EA's objections in the CEPU matter were brought before the
Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) over 2000-01,
heard by Vice President McIntyre.(2) Under section
298Z of the WR Act, the EA sought to have the clauses
removed. His Honour concluded that although the action (charging a
fee) may be for a prohibited reason, the intention or
motive of the conduct was an essential component of a breach
of section
298K, and the provision did not disclose a prohibited
reason as the intention or motive.
-
- On appeal a full bench of the AIRC upheld the Vice President s
finding that the union fee clause was not objectionable. The
decision noted:
The agreement provides that the employer must
advise all new employees of the requirement that they are to pay a
bargaining agent's fee to the CEPU. Once the employer has done that
its obligation has been discharged. The clause does not overtly or
otherwise require the employer to differentiate as between
unionists and non-unionists in the terms upon which employment will
be offered. On its face the agreement does not require or permit,
etc. an employer to discriminate in any way between union members
and non-union members.(3)
This remains an important decision on bargaining
fees. The Hon Tony Abbott in his
Second Reading Speech to the current Bill stated that the
decision has
exhausted the legal avenues to have clauses
removed from certified agreements.(4)
However, this is not the case. An AIRC decision
in January 2003 has determined that bargaining fee provisions
should not be included in CAs, and this development is reported
below.
-
- The Electrolux company contested elements of a log of claims
served upon it by unions including the Australian Workers Union
(AWU) in the Federal Court. Justice Merkel found against the
industrial action taken in support of including bargaining fees in
a certified agreement, ie that the industrial action was
unprotected as at least one component of the claim, the bargaining
fee provision, could not be validly included in a certified
agreement as it did not pertain the relationship of employer and
employee.(5)
-
- In the appeal decision of 21 June 2002, a Full Bench of the
Federal Court (Justices Murray Wilcox, Catherine Branson and Shane
Marshall) held in Electrolux
No.2 on 21 June 2002 that industrial action taken to pursue a
union log of claims was legitimate, including over all of the
claims.
-
- the decision distinguished 'industrial disputes' under the
arbitration system and the more liberal scope of matters which may
be included in certified agreements, the contents of which must
pertain to employment: Section
170LI reads:
Section 170LI Nature of agreement
(1) For an application to be made to the Commission under this
Division, there must be an agreement, in writing, about matters
pertaining to the relationship between:
(a) an employer who is a constitutional
corporation or the Commonwealth; and
(b) all persons who, at any time when the
agreement is in operation, are employed in a single business, or a
part of a single business, of the employer and whose employment is
subject to the agreement.
The Electrolux No.2 decision made the comment,
in obiter dicta,
the words of section
170LI(1) are significantly different from those contained
in the definition of "industrial dispute" in previous enactments.
Cases decided with reference to that definition may not
apply.(6)
-
- The Electrolux company and the employers' association,
Australian Industry Group (AiG) commenced a challenge to the
Electrolux decision in the High Court in July 2002. Should hearings
proceed, they are expected to commence on 9 May
2003.(7)
These cases notwithstanding, there remained a
divided view within the AIRC as to whether bargaining fees can or
cannot be legitimately included in certified agreements. That they
cannot is essentially both derived from Justice Merkel's views in
his November 2001 decision and an earlier (2001) AIRC Full Bench
decision, that bargaining fees may not pertain to
the relationship of an employer and employee.
The Hon.Tony Abbott also noted in his
Second Reading Speech to this Bill that nine agreements
containing bargaining fees were unable to be certified by the AIRC
in August 2002, and the decision/s not to certify were under
appeal.(8)
The result of this appeal was made on 10 January
2003 by a Full Bench of the AIRC. Its decision has, in a nutshell,
indirectly supported the observations provided by Justice Merkel in
the Federal Court, and a previous AIRC Full Bench
decision(9) in which the possibility that that
bargaining fees may not pertain to the employment relationship was
canvassed. The most recent AIRC Full Bench decision holds that
bargaining fee provisions proposed to be inserted into a certified
agreement do not pertain to the relationship of employer and
employee; as the decision says:
the proper construction of that section was that
there must be "an agreement" about matters pertaining to
the requisite relationship. We fail to see why an agreement which
contains a term which is not about matters pertaining to the
requisite relationship would be such an
agreement.(10)
The decision appears to be belatedly sending
reverberations through the media with both The Australian
and Australian Financial Review reporting on the decision
on 22 January 2003. The editorial on the issue by the AFR
stated:
Compulsory bargaining fees are really a backdoor
way of bringing back the closed shop to bolster flagging union
coffers (they) offend against the law of contract, which requires
offer and acceptance as well as consideration and certainty to be
binding.(11)
It will be interesting to see if employers and
unions seek another form of agreement, other than a federal
certified agreement to continue the bargaining fee payments. It was
reported in The Australian that a number of certified
agreements may be deemed to have clauses in them dealing with
bargaining fees and union payroll deduction schemes, and one union
is considering pursuing the matter to the High Court, ie, to seek
to have existing agreements with bargaining fee provisions remain
in force, (despite the issue already being listed with the High
Court).(12)
The predecessor Bill was referred to the Senate
Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee
on 20 March 2002, which reviewed the predecessor Bill (and four
other workplace relations bills). The submission of Australia's
peak employers' organisation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce
and Industry (ACCI) to the Senate Committee expressed concerns with
the format of the predecessor Bill. As originally drafted, it may
have impeded contractual arrangements for the demand for a payment
of a service (bargaining fee). ACCI contended:
ACCI supports both the principle of the bill and
its terms. However, we suggest that there needs to be an amendment
to the bill to ensure the enforcement of proper consensual demands
by registered employer or employee organisations for the payment of
a bargaining fee that has been agreed upon before the provision of
services. The bill should specifically ensure that, where a
registered organisation has an agreement for the provision of
bargaining services and those services are provided but payment is
not made in respect of a request for payment and so a demand for
payment is then made for the provision of those services, that is
not inadvertently caught by the prohibition on the demand for
bargaining fees. There is a problem, in our view, with the wording
of one of the clauses in the bill, which needs to be clarified to
allow proper enforcement of agreed bargaining fee
services.(13)
Subsequently, the Government made amendments to
the Bill and it passed the House of Representatives at its third
reading on 16 May 2002 with the following caveats:
Nothing in this section prevents an industrial
association from demanding payment of a bargaining services fee
that is payable to the association under a contract for the
provision of bargaining services
To avoid doubt, nothing in this Division
prevents an industrial association from entering into a contract
for the provision of bargaining services with person who is not a
member of the association.(14)
Mr Abbott made the following comment on these
amendments
These are very technical amendments. They are
designed to address issues that were raised in the Senate committee
process and to ensure that arrangements which are indeed
voluntarily entered into are not struck out by the legislation. I
commend the amendments to the House.(15)
The predecessor Bill was introduced into the
Senate on 19 June 2002 and passed on 21 August 2002. In addition to
those amendments cited above, the predecessor Bill now included
certain Australian Democrat amendments, supported by the ALP, the
bulk of which the Government rejected on 18 September 2002, when
the Bill was laid aside. In essence the Democrats sought to model a
'permissible' bargaining fee arrangement in the amendments. These
amendments which the House of Representatives considered and
rejected (having considered similar amendments also on 28 August)
included the following detailed requirements:
Section 298SA Permissible bargaining
fees
(1) An organisation may charge a permissible
bargaining fee:
(a) in connection with an agreement certified
under section 170LJ or Division 3 where:
(i) the agreement's beneficiaries include those
who have not made a contribution to the costs of reaching the
agreement by means of paying a union membership fee; and
(ii) this permissible bargaining fee is
explained in clear language, and in writing, to all employees in
advance of the vote on the agreement; and
(iii) details of the permissible bargaining fee,
and the services for which it is payable, are set out in the
agreement; and
(iv) all employees affected by the agreement are
advised, prior to bargaining commencing, whether it is proposed to
include a permissible bargaining services fee in the agreement, and
that they may make submissions to the AIRC under subparagraph (vii)
in relation to this fee; and
(v) in addition to the requirement in subsection
170LT(5), a valid majority of persons employed at the time, whose
employment would be subject to the agreement, have genuinely agreed
to the provision; and
(vi) the agreement provides for the method and
timing of the fee to be paid; and
(vii) the AIRC is satisfied that the fee is fair
and reasonable; and
(viii) the agreement provides that new employees
pay the fee only for the pro rata period of the agreement from the
time that their employment commences; or
(b) in connection with an agreement certified
under section 170LK where:
(i) the employee has agreed to pay for the
provision of bargaining services in respect of the certified
agreement; and
(ii) the employee has agreed to the total amount
to be paid and this total amount covers all the bargaining services
that may be provided in relation to the employee in respect of the
certified agreement; and
(iii) the agreement was entered into before the
bargaining services were provided.(16)
The Government's opposition to the inclusion of
bargaining fees in certified agreements was reflected in its
workplace relations policy taken to the 2001 federal election. Part
9 of the Liberal Party's 2001 election policy Choice and Reward
in a Changing Workplace stated:
Employees in Australia now have the basic right
to choose whether to join or not to join a trade union, and to
exercise that choice free of coercion or duress. Indirect
interference or discrimination with these rights, such as requiring
non unionists to pay compulsory bargaining fees to trade unions
should be outlawed.
The Coalition will:
Legislate to prohibit trade unions involved in
workplace bargaining from imposing a compulsory $500 per year fee
on non union employees.
As previously reported the ALP views such fees
as being capable of being included in certified agreements. ALP
Senators reviewing the predecessor Bill regarded the objects of the
WR Act as affording the right of the parties to an agreement to
determine its contents
Labor senators oppose this Bill which is
misleadingly titled and simply designed to prevent unions from
charging fees to cover the costs they incur in undertaking
enterprise bargaining services. Such a restriction is inconsistent
with the objectives of the Act in promoting agreement making
between parties and allowing parties to determine the most
appropriate form of agreement. Labor senators can only speculate
that the underlying intention is to reduce the capacity for unions
to bargain effectively on behalf of their own members and
Australian employees more generally.(17)
Senator Murray representing the Australian
Democrats in the Senate Committee inquiry into the predecessor Bill
contended
It is hard to see how provisions for bargaining
fees should be against the spirit of the WR Act and its object of
facilitating agreement making. Agreement making is desirable, and
if fee-for-service contributes to that, it is to the good. There is
also the issue of 'free-riders' by employers on the backs of
employer organisations, and employees on the backs of unions We
consider it fair that those who benefit from agreement making
should make a contribution towards its costs, whether employers or
employees. This strikes us as a fair principle.(18)
The position of the peak employers'
organisation, the ACCI has been referred to earlier, and the view
is generally reflective of employer bodies.
On the other hand, the union movement is taking
what appears to be an industry by industry approach to the
inclusion of bargaining fees in certified agreements. In evidence
to the Senate Committee, the ACTU reflected upon the deliberations
leading to the adoption of bargaining fees, and the method in which
they might be pursued. As the President of the ACTU stated:
When we established the principles behind the
bargaining fee, it was very much about not imposing it on every
workplace, not having a union executive take a decision that
imposed it before they went into negotiate, but about a democratic
discussion, decision, at the workplace so that, if you like, the
onus is on us to promote the value of our services in each
environment.
Yet the Australian Education Union preferred not
to set about seeking the inclusion of bargaining fees in its
certified agreements, even though it understood that free-riders
would benefit from negotiations, as the AEU's national secretary
reflected
Members take the view that those who benefit
from an outcome should pay and should not get the outcome unless
they do. However, I think that the wise old conciliation and
arbitration system, going back to the bus ticket case or one of
those cases where everybody should get the outcome, really is the
wisest position for all concerned. We do not have a view on
charging bargaining fees. Our non-union rate is fairly low and we
would prefer them to join the union.(19)
It might be useful to note that the question of
including bargaining fees in enterprise agreements is building
momentum in the State industrial systems. For example, the South
Australian Government has recently conducted a review of the
State's industrial relations jurisdiction, in which the
option for bargaining fees was discussed within
the following parameters:
-
- the fee could be paid on a voluntary basis
-
- the clause would not apply where an employee has been
represented by another party, for example the Employee Ombudsman or
an agent of their choice
-
- the potential to impose a bargaining fee for unrepresented
employees is made known to all employees in the notification of
intention to bargain
-
- any bargaining fee set must be reasonable having regard to the
cost of union membership
-
- in relation to an agreement that includes one or more unions in
the negotiation process, only one bargaining fee can be
charged.(20)
In New South Wales, the NSW Industrial Relations
Commission is also inquiring into the inclusion of bargaining fees
in enterprise agreements, and has proposed the following (new)
principle for the parties to the proceedings to comment on:
Where the proposed enterprise agreement includes
a provision as to payment of an agency or union bargaining fee, the
commission shall consider whether the proposed provision is
consistent with the provisions of the
Industrial Relations Act 1996 and, where applicable, the
rules of any relevant registered organisation.(21)
The NSW Government submitted to the Commission
that bargaining fees are an 'industrial matter' that should be
decided by the parties at the workplace level.(22)
Essentially, this Bill becomes available as a
trigger for a double dissolution of both Houses of Parliament if
after 28 November 2002 the current Bill passes the House of
Representatives and subsequently the Senate rejects the Bill.
For there to be a double dissolution of both
Houses of the Parliament, an interval of 3 months is required
between the rejection of the proposed law by the Senate (in the of
the case of the predecessor Bill, 28 August 2002), and the House of
Representatives passing the proposed law a second time. A second
failure by the Senate to then pass the Bill has the potential to
trigger a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses under section 57
of the Australian Constitution.
Schedule 1
Part 1
Item 1 amends
subsection 170LU(2A) directing the Commission to
refuse to certify agreements which contain 'objectionable
provisions'. Other provisions of the subsection are deleted.
Objectionable provisions are later defined under amendments to
subsection 298Z(5).
Items 3 and 4 provide
definitions for bargaining services and bargaining services fees
respectively under amendments to section 298B(1) contained under
Part XA which deals with freedom of association and non association
(the FOA provisions).
bargaining servicesmeans services
provided by (or on behalf of) an industrial association in relation
to an agreement, or a proposed agreement, under Part VIB (including
the negotiation, making, certification, operation, extension,
variation or termination of the agreement).
bargaining services feemeans a fee
(however described) payable:
(a) to an industrial association; or
(b) to someone else in lieu of an industrial
association;
wholly or partly for the provision of bargaining
services, but does not include me mbership dues.
Item 6 adds the payment or
non-payment of bargaining services fees to the list of prohibited
reasons in section 298L(1) under new paragraph
298L(1)(o). Prohibited reasons are reasons for which an
employee cannot be dismissed, injured in employment or have altered
the employment of the employee to his/her prejudice.
Amongst other things, Items 7 and
8 add provisions concerning employees and contractors
(sections 298Q and 298S respectively), preventing industrial
associations from inciting these persons to take industrial action,
coercing these persons to join the association or taking other
discriminatory action where the conduct involves the non-payment of
bargaining service fees.
Item 9 adds new provisions to
Division 5 of Part XA. Proposed subsection
298SA prevents industrial associations from demanding
bargaining service fees. However proposed
subsection 298SA(1A) makes clear that the section
does not void contract arrangements for the payment of bargaining
service fees. Proposed subsection 298SB prevents
an industrial association from taking action with the intent of
coercing the payment of bargaining service fees. Proposed
subsection 298SBA clarifies that the FOA provisions do not
prevent contracts being entered into by an industrial association
with a person (including a non-member) for the provision of
bargaining services.
Item 10 inserts a
new Division 5A into Part XA.
New section 298SC prevents
persons from making misleading statements about a person's
liability to pay bargaining service fees.
Item 11 inserts
new subsection 298Y(2) which
holds that a provision of a certified agreement is void to the
extent that it requires payment of a bargaining services fee.
Item 14 ensures that this provision will apply to
existing certified agreements.
Item 12 repeals and replaces
subsection 298Z(5) providing a new definition of
'objectionable provision' to include a provision of a certified
agreement which requires the payment of a bargaining services
fee.
Schedule 1
Part 2
Application
Items 13 allows the amendments
to the certified agreement provisions to have application (after
the provisions commenced) even if a matter had commenced hearing in
the Commission prior to the amendments coming into effect.
Item 15 applies the proposed
definition of objectionable provisions under Item 12 to apply to
old agreements .
Item 16 confirms that payments
made and received prior to these amendments coming to effect stand.
Conclusion
The decision by the AIRC on bargaining fees on
10 January 2003 in effect supports the Government's position on
this matter. Therefore the question may be asked as to whether the
provisions of this Bill are required to prohibit bargaining fees,
now that the AIRC has determined that the fees are non-allowable.
It might also be assumed that, as a first step, the Office of the
Employment Advocate might seek to re-list applications with the
AIRC to have such clauses removed from agreements.
-
- Steve O'Neill and Bronwen Shepherd,
Bargaining Fees and Workplace Agreements E brief,
Department of the Parliamentary Library, August 2002.
- AIRC,
PR900919, 9 February 2001.
- AIRC,
PR 910205, 12 October 2001.
- The Hon. Tony Abbott MP, Parliamentary Debates, House
of Representatives, 4 December 2002, p. 9537.
-
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers Union (FCA,
No. S157 of 2001, 14 November 2001.
- Automotive,
Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union
v Electrolux Home Products Pty Limited [2002] FCAFC 199 (21 June
2002).
- 'What's ahead for IR in 2003', WorkplaceInfo 7 January
2003.
- The Hon. Tony Abbott MP, Parliamentary Debates, House
of Representatives, 4 December 2002, p. 9536.
- AIRC,
PR 910205, 12 October 2001.
- AIRC,
PR926554, 10 January 2003.
- 'The perils of wage setting', The Australian Financial
Review 22 January 2003.
- 'High Court may rule on union fees', The Australian,
22 January 2003.
- Evidence by Mr P. Anderson for ACCI to the Senate Employment,
Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee on 3 May
2002, p. 80.
- The Hon. Tony Abbott MP, Parliamentary Debates, House
of Representatives, 16 May 2002, p. 2340.
- ibid.
- The Hon. Tony Abbott MP, Parliamentary Debates, House
of Representatives, 4 December 2002, p. 9537.
- Refer to ALP Senators minority report in the Senate Employment,
Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee,
Report on the provisions of bills to amend the Workplace
Relations Act 1996, May 2002, pp. 39 40.
- Refer to comments of Senator Murray in Senate Employment,
Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee,
Report on the provisions of bills to amend the Workplace
Relations Act 1996, May 2002, p. 65.
- Robert Durbridge on behalf of the Australian Education Union
giving evidence to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and
Education Legislation Committee on the
Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union
Fees) Bill 2002 (and other Bills) 3 May 2002, p. 122.
- Review of the South Australian Industrial Relations System
Report,
October 2002, p.93. Note however that the SA Opposition has
proposed a Bill to outlaw bargaining fees, see 'Union bargaining
fees under attack', The Advertiser, 4 December 2002.
- 'NSW may adopt bargaining fees', WorkplaceInfo, 22
November 2002.
- Reported in Industrial Relations and Management
Newsletter, v.19, n.11, December 2002, p. 5.
Steve O'Neill
4 February 2003
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2003
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
2003.
Back to top