ACCESS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS TO AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS: ATTITUDES OF GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS*

Abstract

Abstract: Some recent cases in the arbitration tribunals involving strikes and work bans suggest that some governments and government employers are apprehensive about and resentful of the intrusion of the tribunals into their affairs. The Commonwealth government, for instance, recently amended the Public Service Act to remove what were seen as threats to the efficiency of the public service resulting from constraints imposed by the Arbitrator on the Public Service Board in relation to recruitment, selection and promotion. At the State level, the issues which arise in many public service strikes are not industrial in character, yet as the strike in almost all gaols in N.S.W. earlier this year illustrated, an industrial tribunal can help the conflicting parties reach an agreement. If, however, the tribunal fails in such efforts, it can do no more, where the issues are not industrial, than state its views about what is just and reasonable in the circumstances and perhaps recommend how the dispute should be resolved. Since 1974 the attitude of the N.S.W. Public Service Board toward this category of recommendations has hardened, as illustrated by the 1975 Teachers Case re Preference; the 1978 Prison Officers Case re Disciplinary Proceedings; and the 1978 Teachers Case re Disciplinary Proceedings. But while some governments and government employers fear that the discharge of their responsibilities is being impaired by industrial tribunals, they are nevertheless prompt in enlisting the aid of these bodies when in trouble and often find such aid indispensable. Governments and government employers will have to learn to live with the industrial tribunals, which, at the Commission level, are part of the judiciary and have an obligation to discharge their statutory responsibilities independent of the executive branch of government.