ISSUE 107 : Jul/Aug - 1994 - Australian Defence Force Journal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

II) AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL NO. 107 JULY/AUGUST 1994personnel should have an association to representthem because virtually every other group of people inAustralia had such a right (Grazehrook, 1983, p.47).Service personnel had been traditionally conditionedto expect their military leaders to act in their bestinterests, but by 1983 it was apparent that these leaderslacked the influence required to effectively intercedeon behalf of their subordinates (Jauncey, 1983,p.47). The climate, therefore, was right for the establishmentof a military "union". The Moskos "occupational"phase had apparently been reached. It wasgenerally perceived among ADF personnel that therehad been a widespread erosion of conditions of serviceand that the government and service chiefs were unableor unwilling to improve conditions. It was thisdissatisfaction which fostered support for ArFFA.The political climate was also right for the formationof such an organisation. As part of its platformfor the 1983 Federal Election, the Australian LaborParty had reiterated the position established bythe Whitlam Government: "Serving personnel shouldhave the right to form and be members of associationsin respect to their pay and conditions" (quoted byLawrence, 1986, p.31).The Industrial Relations Commission plays norole in the determination of pay and conditions formembers of the Defence Force. The Defence ForceRemuneration Tribunal (DFRT) was established in1984 to perform this task, and although reasonablyindependent, it is expected to follow Commissionpolicy as much as possible. Under s.58k of theDefence Act, the DFRT is required to have regard todecisions and principles of the Commission which areconsidered relevant "in the opinion of the Tribunal".Under the Act, the Tribunal is supposed to conductreviews of pay and all allowances every two years.This is designed to safe-guard the interests of servicepersonnel who are technically disenfranchised withrespect to matters concerning their remuneration(Oates, 1992, p.33). Unfortunately, for various reasons,the Tribunal has been unable to meet this reviewtimetable.The DFRT is comprised of three part-time memberswho sit in a judicial capacity to hear submissionsput to it by HQ ADF. acting on behalf of service personnel.The hearing operates like a court, with theDepartment of Industrial Relations acting on behalf ofthe Commonwealth as the employer. No other partieshave the right to present submissions to the DFRT.although they may appear at the discretion of theTribunal and put forward arguments in the capacity ofinterveners. The Tribunal is under no obligation toconsider the evidence or submissions of interveners.The Armed Forces Federation, the RSL and theAustralian Medical Association (AMA) are the mostregular interveners.The most obvious disadvantage of the current systemis that service personnel are not independentlyrepresented in the remuneration process. In fact, it hasbeen suggested that the absence of provision fordirect employee representation before the DFRT wasa major factor in the decision to form ArFFA (Pratt,1987, p.330). While HQ ADF notionally representsthe "employees", there is a tremendous conflict ofinterest in this role. HQ ADF works directly to theCDF, who is responsible for running the DefenceForce within an allocated annual budget set by theCabinet. It is his staff who are responsible for preparingsubmissions arguing for Defence pay rises, eventhough such pay rises may have to be funded out ofthe allocated Defence budget. This dual responsibilitycreates a conflict of interest recognised in the 1988Cross Report which commented that the CDF isplaced in "an invidious position if. say, proposedremuneration increases are likely to impact on reequipmentprograms" (quoted by Oates, 1992, p. 15).The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR)represents the Commonwealth as the employer intribunal hearings. It has been suggested that this in factmeans that the "employer" is therefore representedtwice in the form of the CDF and DIR. The questionwhich must be asked then is — where is the employee?(Gowans, 1986, p.28) A further major difficultyis presented by the limited understanding DIRhas about the realities of service life. In a civilianindustrial hearing in front of the Industrial RelationsCommission, the employer organisations can at leastbe relied upon to understand the working conditionsto which the union might be referring, even if theydisagree with a particular argument. In DFRT hearings,DIR is generally unable to relate to the militarysituation, and tends to adopt a civilian point of viewof any argument. This problem was identified in a1990 Parliamentary Research Paper on conditionsof service in the military: "DIR has little practicalexperience with Defence and unlike other employers,is not held responsible for productivity, efficiency,employee morale or manning level" (quoted by Oates.1992. p.25). This is a most unsatisfactory situationwhich only makes it more difficult for the tribunalto get the true picture from the point of view ofservice personnel. Captain Oates elaborated furtheron the problem: "DIR's lack of involvement in ADFmanagement, its lack of direct knowledge of ADFmatters and no independent information accessmake that Department poorly placed to performthe employer's role in any bargaining process"(1992, p.31).
UNIONISATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCEIIFuture DirectionsThe Armed Forces Federation is currently seekingfederal registration with the Industrial Relations Commissionin a bid to gain legal recognition for its role inrepresenting the members of the Defence Force. It isfelt that registration will secure the Federation's rightofappearance at all DFRT hearings, and force the governmentand ministers to consult with the Federation on allmatters affecting pay and conditions of service. Thestatus of the Federation would also change from alobby group to a legal representative group. However,the Federation would remain an independent organisationand would not seek affiliation with the ACTU orany other union body.However, while registration will improve the statusof the Federation and perhaps '"legitimise" its role inthe eyes of many Defence personnel, it will not givethe Federation the exclusive right to represent Defencepersonnel before DFRT. The operation of the DFRTis laid down in the Defence Act, so it would be necessaryfor the Act to be amended before the Federationcould replace the Defence Force Advocate in tribunalhearings. However, registration would at least givethe Federation legal status and force the ADF to acknowledgethe role it can play in representing servicepersonnel.Perhaps in the future, the Tribunal's functions couldbe absorbed by the Industrial Relations Commission.This was in fact a recommendation of the 1985 HancockReport into Australian industrial relations, whichacknow ledged the unique nature of the Defence Force,but still concluded that the responsibility for determiningsalaries and allowances should reside with theIndustrial Relations Commission (Report of the Committeeof Review, 1985. 8.116). However, this approachis probably unlikely in the foreseeable future becauseof the inherent differences between military andcivilian employment, and the resulting requirementfor different approaches to wage determination. Asargued by Captain Oates. civilian procedures aregenerally incompatible with the military ethos andservice under a code of discipline. The ADF is notstructured to conform to a civilian pay setting systemwhich is now partly based on industrial democracy(Oates. 1992. pJl).A separation of the salary vote from other Defenceexpenditure within the Defence budget must be regardedas a necessity. This is something which ArFFAcould pursue as a major issue. Separation is necessaryto avoid the conflict between competing interests forthe same funds. There should never be a requirementfor a "trade-off between one area of Defence expenditureand another. After all. it has been pointedout that servicemen need satisfactory and fair paylevels as well as modem equipment and adequatetraining provisions (Lawrence, 1986, p.36). One cannotbe offset against the other without adverselyaffecting morale and efficiency.ConclusionThis article has argued that Australian service personnelrequire some form of collective representationin the determination of pay and conditions, and thattherefore, the Armed Forces Federation should havegreater involvement in the Defence remuneration process.The important role played by service conditionsmatters in terms of the overall morale and effectivenessof the Defence Force is now acknowledged. The growingdemand among service personnel for increasedrepresentation in the remuneration process was highlightedinitially by the formation of the Armed ForcesFederation. Continued support for the Federation sincethen indicates that this lack of representation is still anissue of concern for service personnel.Arguments that such representation would presenta threat to military discipline and authority have beenshown to be unfounded in the conservative behaviourof the ArFFA to date. The experiences of unionisedarmed forces in Europe have also shown that militaryunions concern themselves with issues of pay andconditions, not with discipline and operational matters(Group Representation in European Anned Forces,1979. p.2).Many Australian service personnel are no longerprepared to accept their lack of representation in theremuneration process. The Defence Force remainsone of the only areas of employment where representationin the determination of pay and conditionsis denied. It seems likely that this situation will eventuallybe corrected.BIBLIOGRAPHYArmy, Australian Army newspaper, various issues.Arango. R.J.. Major. US Army. "Military Unions — Causes andConsequences". Military Review. November 1477. pp.3-15.Armed Forces Federation of Australia. Constitution.Australian Defence Report. 28 May. 1992.Ballantyne, I.J.. Major. Ralnf. "Military Unionism: Its Potentialfor Development in the Australian Armed Forces in the 1980s".Defence Force Journal. No 39. March/April 1983. pp.3-10.Cortright. D. & Watts. M.. Left Face: Soldiers. Unions andResistance Movements in Modern Annies. Greenwood Press.1991.
Page 1: A U S T R A L I A NNO. 107JULY/AUGU
Page 6 and 7: 4 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 10 and 11: X AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 16 and 17: 14 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCH JOURNAL
Page 20 and 21: DIGGECalendar 1995The Diggers calen
Page 26 and 27: About to leave the Armed Forces?Con
Page 32 and 33: ;n M SIR \[ 1 \N OUhNCI IQkCI l()l
Page 36 and 37: Air Force Memorial —Runnymede, En
Page 38 and 39: 6 JUNE 19 44By early 1944. 3.500.(X
Page 40 and 41: Australians in the Great InvasionTh
Page 42 and 43: 50th Anniversary CommemorationsAust
Page 44 and 45: YOUNG"ENDEAVOURADVENTURE AT SEA FOR
Page 48 and 49: 38 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCK JOl/RNA
Page 50 and 51: 4() AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNA
Page 52 and 53: a: AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 58 and 59: 4S AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 62 and 63:
52 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 64 and 65:
The Western Front was a continuous
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74:
64 AUSTRALIAN DEFHNCH FORCE JOURNAL
show all

ISSUE 107 : Jul/Aug - 1994 - Australian Defence Force Journal

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?