Meat inspectors' conditions for the chop?
By Steve Rogers
CANBERRA — Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) agency bargaining negotiations broke down on July 8 over the issue of conditions for meat inspectors and field-based veterinary staff. Meat industry representatives have been wanting to slash conditions for the field staff since the introduction of user pays for the abattoir inspection services.
At issue is the multi-billion dollar Australian meat export industry. Traditionally a three-way dispute has existed. On one side the handful of meat industry giants which dominate the export market are trying to squeeze a few extra dollars out of their operations and remove the inspectors' conditions which are so attractive to other meat industry workers.
Closely aligned to them is the federal Labor government. Primary industries minister Bob Collins has given a commitment to cut costs to the industry. On the other hand, US, Japanese, European Union and other markets are placing extreme pressure on importers to guarantee quality of product. In the past, kangaroo and excess pesticide residue scandals damaged the market for Australian meat. Today, repeat performances could have more far reaching results.
Counterposed to industry and government have been the food standards officers and vets, who work in the abattoirs examining the livestock and processing conditions in difficult working conditions. Both groups of workers are now covered by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU).
Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE) management has identified agency bargaining as the means to slash the conditions of these inspection staff. Their first step was to propose a splitting of AQIS from DPIE in order to fast-track the non-AQIS claim for the DPIE. This move was subsequently supported by the union despite some opposition. Several rounds of negotiations culminated in CPSU-AQIS negotiations in Sydney on July 7 and 8.
A July 12 bulletin authorised by CPSU president Peter Robson, who led the union negotiating team, described the union's position: "CPSU is prepared to negotiate with AQIS in an enterprise bargaining framework and have indicated on a number of occasions that we are prepared to examine a number of issues, including: 38-hour week arrangements ... emergency relief ... more flexible application of staffing levels ... part-time and seasonal work arrangements ..."
These and other givebacks meet the demands of management, especially the anticipated return to a 40-hour working week. AQIS walked out of these negotiations, however, because it thought it could get more. Specifically AQIS wants the union to police the removal of existing conditions, while the CPSU view is to take it to the shed-level for negotiation.
The union, not surprisingly, is unwilling (and possibly unable) to take such action. On the other hand, while the union's current position will allow well-organised sheds to maintain most of their conditions, it will leave others unprotected, and in the long term, weaken the whole union organisation in the field.
In a related move, the management team in the DPIE negotiations walked out on July 7. In that case, management wanted union approval to sack any staff it wanted. Within days of the negotiation breakdown, both DPIE and AQIS advertised publicly for staff. At least in the AQIS case this was a clear breach of agreements already in place.
Industrial relations in DPIE, poor for some time, now look set to deteriorate.