By John Rainford
Eric Wicker is a longtime trade unionist on the Wollongong waterfront who has been charged with a criminal offence — demanding property with menaces, or, to be blunt, extortion.
Eric was the honorary president of the Port Kembla branch of the Painters and Dockers Union during the 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, the branch secretary was a local union stalwart — Stan Woodbury, a man revered in Illawarra union circles for his staunch trade union principles and his many contributions to the local community.
In the charge laid against Eric, the New South Wales director of public prosecutions contends that, along with Woodbury, he demanded work on eight ships in Port Kembla in 1991 and 1992. Moreover, the two unionists fined the owners of those vessels sums of money for work performed by the ships' crews rather than shore-based labour.
The charge is curious because the authorities could have named dozens of ship tied up at Port Kembla in similar industrial action. Indeed, this tactic of tying up ships and demanding work for shore-based labour has been a standard industrial action in virtually every port in Australia. It has been necessary because Australian governments, unlike other countries, refuse to legislate to ensure necessary repair and cleaning work is carried out by local labour.
The dispute over the unions' demand for the use of shore-based labour for repair and cleaning work on docked ships rather than the labour of ships' crew originated in 1946 in the port of Fremantle. The dockers' and the shipwrights' unions were the first involved. As it gradually spread to other ports, the Waterside Workers Federation, the Seamen's Union and the Firemen and Deckhands Union also joined in the union action.
The overseas shipowners demanded that a pool of labour be available to perform the fit-out work, but they refused to guarantee a regular supply of work. Instead, they reserved the right to use ship crews to do the work at their discretion in order to save money.
At times of high unemployment, this action by the shipowners resulted in disputes involving all maritime unions.
In 1948 the dispute first attracted the attention of the arbitration court. Justice Dunphy, president of the Western Australian Court of Arbitration, recommended that steps be taken to ensure that shore-based labour perform the work.
Nevertheless, this dispute has flared from time to time over the last 50 years. Overseas ships would periodically seek to use ship crews for fitting-out, cleaning and lashing and unlashing work; the ships would be banned; eventually the owners would agree to shore-based labour doing the work.
In the early 1960s the unions started to rethink their tactics. Putting on a blue and getting an agreement that the work be done by shore-based labour was one thing, but to keep employers to their agreements was another. True enough, a ban on a vessel where the work had already been performed would cause the shipowners some pain, but this did nothing for the unemployed who could have done that work and had proved to be no guarantee that the shipowners wouldn't try the same thing again.
So in 1962 a new tactic emerged. Ships that didn't accede to the work being done by shore-based labour were banned. For work done by the ships' crew a "fine" was demanded of the shipowner — the award rate of pay for the number of workers who should have been employed on the work. The money was distributed to those unemployed who should have performed the work.
The "fining" tactic, arguably, was a bit out of the ordinary. That's a matter of opinion. As a matter of fact, while not a guarantee of success, it was more effective than any other industrial tactic.
The ACTU became involved in the dispute as far back as 1958. It convened meetings with the federal government in 1962 in an effort to get support for legislative initiatives to solve the problem. In 1968, 1971 and 1975, ACTU executive and congress resolutions endorsed the proposition that crews of vessels of foreign registry should not be used to perform work that could be performed by shore-based labour. Such work was identified as typically being: preparing or cleaning ship holds, shoring off, dunnaging and lashing and unlashing cargo.
In 1973 a royal commission was set up to deal with the issue, named after Justice Sweeney, who headed it. It recommended that the Navigation Act be amended to ensure that work on foreign vessels be done by shore-based labour on a port-by-port basis. This was in line with legislation in countries such as the USA.
With all this as background, why is Wicker being singled out? There is only one explanation — the prosecution is political, initiated with the design to demonise maritime workers before and during last year's Patrick dispute.
The role of industrial relations minister Peter Reith as the main provocateur in the wider Patrick dispute is well known — the courts decided he had a case to answer. His role in Wicker's case is less well known but equally odious.
On January 9, 1998, in a speech in Launceston, Reith referred to the "illegitimate demands of hold cleaning" being investigated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Council. He followed this up on February 19, 1998, on ABC TV's Lateline, referring to the Maritime Union of Australia and hold cleaning being an "ugly problem" and intimating that the issue would shortly envelop the MUA.
At the Liberal Party convention in March 1998 in Brisbane, Reith continued the attack. He indicated that the Australian Federal Police were investigating matters and prosecuting in one case — clearly a reference to Wicker.
The Patrick dispute may be over, but Wicker remains a forgotten victim of the conservative assault on Australian unionism. If this prosecution succeeds, it means any official or delegate pressing a wage claim or some similar claim on behalf of their members will be guilty of extortion. In law, to distinguish between such a claim and the claims made by the maritime unions since 1946 is simply impossible.
Wicker is now an invalid pensioner as a result of a work accident. His former work mates — on whose behalf he campaigned — have been magnificent in both their moral and their financial support. The Eric Wicker Defence Committee has set itself the task of publicising the case, raising money for legal costs and prevailing on the responsible authorities to drop the charges.
Any support that can be given is much appreciated. Donations can be sent to: Defence Committee Treasurer, Lou Christofides, 310 Farmborough Rd, Unanderra NSW 2526. Phone numbers to contact the committee are (02) 4271 4837 and (02) 4268 1245.
[John Rainford is the national industrial officer of the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union.]