The paper 'What Caused the Patrick Dispute: Cairns, Webb Dock and Dubai" is a good example of a management case study. Patrick dispute is arguably one of the most significant recent industrial disputes in Australia when it comes to the history of industrial relations (Anner, 2003). The Patrick dispute the perfect example of the trade union’ s resistance to challenge by capital to substitute unionized labour with a non-unionized workforce (Ashwin, 2000). International support was a significant element in this industrial dispute. Knowing the fact that well build up nature of the international back up, the period and the dispute directly to it shade a worthwhile insight into the magnitude for international union recruitment in the stevedoring industry. Taking into consideration the context for the dispute, the trade union has been portrayed as facing problems on top and beneath the country level since the early 1980s, the country shifted from a greatly protected domestic economy to be questionably one the planet’ s most unbolt economies (Ashwin, 2000).
This adoption and changes of a distinctive neo-liberal control model in Australia generated a unique set of tests for the trade unions to be specific (Cornfield, 1997).
The decentralization of Australian associations, escalating internationalization of the economy, mounting employer anti-unionism and intimidating government after 1996 formed motivations for the nation’ s unions to incorporate new responses together with international lines of attack in campaigning reports. What caused the Patrick Dispute: Cairns, Webb Dock and Dubai? Evident in the circumstance of historical anxiety between the state, labour and capital on the waterfront, the 1998 dispute was an extension of these battles (Anner, 2003). Eight months before the keep out of Maritime Union Australian (MUA) workers from Patrick in the region of Australia sturdy signals of what was had transpired in three separate occurrences.
September 1997 in the port of Cairns Queensland, International Purveyors wrecked its contract with National Stevedoring Services for unloading and loading of supplies bound for Freeport Mine in West Papua. The surviving permanent employees all associates of the MUA were substituted by non-labour workers. Due to inferior boycott legislation, MUA was not able to resort its conventional tactics of industrial action in favour of its members (Ashwin, 2000). It was to be anticipated that it would mean that there were not many alternatives for MUA because the newspaper reports pointed out that there seems little probability concerning MUA ability to bring to an end the departure and arrival of the vessel the MUA attempt to request the support from International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) (Anner, 2003).
ITF got in touch with the ship’ s owner via the acquaintances in North America. The owner of the ship spoke the coordinator of Australian ITF, articulated the outlook that the action was unreasonable and agreed that the ship should not harbour till the union labour had gone back.
The ship was also covered by the ITF agreement. Already the ship’ s owner had connected with the International union movement and had an interest in upholding good associations with the ITF. The result of the dispute was the MUA member maintained their jobs and there were some changes to the work provisions. Cairns dispute was viewed as a precursor to Patrick’ s dispute. December 1997, labour opposition came to know a change plan whereby around 70 Australian inhabitants together with serving and ex-armed forces workforce were to be instructed as stevedores in Dubai.
The apprentice was to stay in Dubai for three months and get back to their country and coach an additional 120-180 human resources prior to been hired as the non-union stevedores (Ashwin, 2000).
Anner, M. (2003). Industrial structure, the state, and ideology: Shaping labour transnationalism in the Brazilian auto industry. Social Science History, 27(4), 603-34
Ashwin, S. (2000). International labour solidarity after the cold war", in Cohen, R., Rai, S. (Eds), Global Social Movements. London: The Athlone Press.
Briggs, C. (2001). Australian exceptionalism: the role of trade unions in the emergence of enterprise bargaining. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(1), 27-43
Castree, N. (2000). Geographical scale and grass-roots unionism: the Liverpool dock dispute, 1995-98. Economic Geography, 76(3), 272-292
Cooper, R. (2005). Australian unionism in a decollectivised environment. Paper presented at the 19th Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney, 9-11 February.
Cornfield, D. (1997). An editorial introduction to ‘Labour in the Americas’", Work and Occupations, Vol. 24 No.3, pp.278-88.
Dabscheck, B. (1998). The waterfront dispute: of vendetta and the Australian way. Economic and Labour Relations Review, 9(2), 155-187
Dreiling, M., & Robinson, I. (1998). Union responses to NAFTA in the US and Canada: explaining intra- and international variation. Mobilization: An International Journal, 3(2), 163-84