English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ABOUR market reform is widely recognised as an essential component in broader economic reform. Reforms of federal and State industrial legislation in the 1990s have involved a change in focus from a centralised system based on awards and arbitration to enterprise bargaining widi awards operating as a general safety net. The Workplace Relations and odicr Legislation Amendment Act 1996 was one of die major reforms of die Howard Government in diat year. One component of the reforms was die enhancement of powers of die Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to issue orders to stop or prevent industrial action, along widi die ready enforcement of such orders by way of injunction in the Federal Court. Enforcement of dispute setdement orders has had a chequered history in Australia. Mechanisms have always been available to make orders diat industrial action cease or not occur; but such orders have been eidier observed in die breach or granted in very exceptional circumstances. Former ACTU Ixgal Officer Professor Breen Creighton (1991) has described diis situation as a paradox widiin die Australian industrial system. In practice, it has represented a serious imbalance that has undermined die standing of die Australian system and its institutions. A system which imposes enforceable obligations on employers yet makes largely ineffective recommendations, directions and orders against industrial action by trade unions has been widely criticised. The issue is of critical importance to die evolution of die AIRC towards playing a less interventionist role in ‘interest’ disputes (disputes over claims for improved entidements) while retaining an important role in die proper setdement of ‘rights’ disputes (disputes over compliance widi existing entidements). Effective dispute setdement powers are most important in die case of irresponsible wildcat stoppages, especially in industry sectors of major economic significance and in which unions engage in militant industrial behaviour generally over managerial decision-making. More effective dispute setdement powers could also help improve Australia’s record on industrial disputes. Although die number of working days lost dirough industrial action dropped dirough die 1970s and die 1980s in common widi die rest of die western industrialised world, it remains above die OECD average. Whereas die annual average number of working days lost in OECD countries during 1990-96 was 85 per 1,000 employees, in Australia die equivalent number was 143 (Sweeney & Davies, 1997). Graeme Watson

Dispute Settlement Orders Under Australia’s Workplace Relations Act 1996: Are They Working?