Alex Tighe
The South Australian branch of the Australian Services Union (ASU) won a groundbreaking case in late January, when the industrial commission confirmed the right of some long-term temporary workers to be granted permanent employment.
The story behind the scenes of this significant victory exemplifies just how difficult it is for casual workers to obtain their entitlements — even when these exist on paper. This case demonstrates why workers need unions and why unions need to be vigilant — even after improvements are won through awards and industrial agreements.
On October 1, 2002, after months of organising, research and legal debate, the ASU obtained a variation to the Clerks (South Australia) Award that gave casuals the right to have their employment converted to full-time or regular part-time.
An award is supposed to be a legal document setting out conditions of employment for employers to adhere to.
This award provision says that when a casual worker has had 12 months of regular and systematic work, an employer must advise them in writing that they are entitled to convert to permanent employment. The worker must then respond within four weeks.
The intention of this is to provide long-term casuals with job security and access to leave provisions, such as sick leave, carer's leave and recreation leave. This ensures that workers aren't disadvantaged by precarious casual conditions.
While the changes to working conditions in the award were being developed, the ASU, which had been organising among labour-hire workers, identified some 120 eligible casuals. When the award was proclaimed, the union wrote to relevant labour-hire companies covering clerical workers in the public sector, and requested discussions about conversion for long-term casuals. By January 2003, the ASU had identified three labour-hire companies that had not complied with the award.
The dispute that ended in the industrial commission was with Direct Personnel and affected 37 workers. During the dispute and legal proceedings, Direct Personnel notified the casual workers that they would no longer be offered work with the "host" employer.
Negotiations and stalling tactics by the company dragged the dispute out for more than 18 months, by which time many of the casual workers had moved onto other forms of employment. Only two workers were left fighting for permanency.
Direct Personnel revealed that they had more than 3000 workers on their books and had only filled 1005 positions in the previous year. They also gave evidence that 70-80% of the casual workers on their list finish a placement without another one to go to and only 3% of placements extend beyond one month.
Labour-hire employment isn't just precarious because workers don't know when they will receive their next job and hence income. During the case several workers gave evidence to the Industrial Commission indicating that they were unclear about whom their employer would actually be if they obtained a permanent position. Many labour-hire casuals are uncertain about who employs them, and therefore who is responsible for their health and safety, and training and performance.
Several unions are taking up the fight for casual and labour-hire workers, as employers increasingly opt for this form of employment. According to John Buchanan in Fragmented Futures, the proportion of employers using labour-hire grew from 14% in 1990 to 21% by 1995, and labour hire is growing most rapidly in sites with more than 500 workers. Although the real figures are difficult to estimate, many reports show that labour hire is expanding through most sectors.
If this case ensures that more temporary and casual workers become aware of and take action to defend their rights then it is a step forward.
More importantly, if more unions take up the battle to organise and enforce rights for temporary and casual workers then we have a better chance of eliminating this highly exploitative form of work.
From Green Left Weekly, March 10, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.