Industrial Legislation and the Rise of Employer Associations, 1890-1906

Abstract

The strikes of the 1890s have often been depicted as a watershed in Australian industrial relations history because of their long-term impact on theformation of the Labor Party and the introduction of compulsory arbitration legislation. Whether these strikes were the cause, rather than a catalyst, of such developments, they did result in legislation giving unions a greater degree of legal encouragement and protection than had previously existed. This paper argues that the continuous existence afforded unions by this legislation made it desirable for employers to organize into permanent associations. This form of organization contrasted with the previously transient associations designed to deal with unions on an ad hoc basis. These employer associations (which should not be confused with trade associations) spearheaded employers' opposition at the industrial, parliamentary and judicial levels against the new industrial legislation, especially that seeking to introduce compulsory arbitration. The paper argues that, until 1906, although employers had been unsuccessful in keeping compulsory arbitration legislation off the statute books in two states and at the Commonwealth level, they had been successful in restricting the scope and operations of those arbitration systems.

Intra-industry competition among employer associations: a case study of the retail sector

“…Australian EAs have operated in a different, more structured environment from those of other English speaking countries because of the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration system (Barry 1995;Plowman 1985Plowman , 1988. The system gave formal recognition and protection to registered organisations of workers and employers.…”

“…But it also required them to behave in ways that were sanctioned by the system such as refraining from engaging in industrial action outside of the bargaining period. So, both Australian unions and employer bodies existed as 'creatures of the state' (Scherer 1985, 92) and consequently, in the case of EAs, were viewed as reactive in their behaviour (Plowman 1985(Plowman , 1988. As far as their day-to-day operations are concerned, the activities of Australian associations in the field of IR have traditionally had 'collective' characteristics (Sheldon and Thornthwaite 2004).…”

Employer Associations: Assessing Plowman's Reactivity Thesis

“…Plowman argues that Australian employer association activity, or rather 'reactivity', is exceptional-the product of its relationship with a unique history of compulsory arbitration. Thus, rather than shaping bargaining structures, Australian employers organized permanent associations negatively, to defeat the introduction of the arbitration system (Plowman, 1985;1989a). Plowman (1988a) has contrasted reactive Australian employers with their United Kingdom counterparts who apparently flourished under a system of 'voluntary' collective bargaining.…”

Employers and Compulsory Arbitration: The Higgins Era 1907-1920

“…The period proved a formative one in which enduring principles of wage fxation and dispute settlement were evolved, and the basis for the division of jurisdiction between federal and state tribunals were established. The centripetal forces resulting in a greater centralization of basic and secondary wage determination, together with the emergent 'test case' approach to standard hours of work, forced employer associations to take a more national and less state-oriented approach to conditions of employment.The legislative and employer organizational developments following the strikes of the 1890s have been reviewed in a recent article (Plowman 1985). The enactment of compulsory arbitration by three Parliaments and some form of minimum wage machinery in all the mainland states caused employers to coalesce with the same intensity as the strikes had done.…”

“…The legislative and employer organizational developments following the strikes of the 1890s have been reviewed in a recent article (Plowman 1985). The enactment of compulsory arbitration by three Parliaments and some form of minimum wage machinery in all the mainland states caused employers to coalesce with the same intensity as the strikes had done.…”