Pattern Bargaining: Is There a Statistical Case For Reform?

By CPD/ACIRRT

Tony Abott is at it again, trying to outlaw pattern bargaining.

Abbott is using the report "Agreement making in Australia Under the Workplace Relations Act 2000 and 2001" prepared by the Dept of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWRS) and the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA).

In this discussion of what is pattern bargaining the following two issues seem the major stumbling blocks:

1. the intent and conduct of the negotiating parties;

2. the outcomes or content of agreements.

The AIRC, under the WR Act, can terminate a bargaining period if they find that either party is not genuinely trying reach an agreement. Justice Munro ruled in favour of an employer on this issue and indicated that he thought that the intent or behaviour of the parties should be the main criteria, not the content of the agreement provisions.

The DEWRS/OEA report uses three main descriptors to identify pattern agreements - common wage outcomes, conditions and identical expiry dates. ACIRRT provided a commissioned report to the Building Industry Royal Commission that bears some similarity to the DEWR/OEA report but it uses a different set of criteria in the definition of pattern agreements.

ACIRRT concludes that "the occurrence of common and even identical provisions in agreements in an industry is not, necessarily, evidence of pattern bargaining. In negotiating agreements, individual employers and unions will often end up with what may, at face value, seem like a pattern agreement, as the parties often look to the 'going rate' or the norm in other agreements in their industry and to ensure fairness in the case of unions."

(CPD/ACIRRT Workplace Intelligence; October 2002)