Why Melbourne council workers are escalating from skipping bins to a full strike
- Written by Shae McCrystal, Professor of Labour Law, University of Sydney
Have you ever gone out to bring in your wheelie bin after collection day only to find it still full? That was the situation facing residents of three Melbourne councils this month after council workers missed collections on some streets, while continuing to collect bins on others.
This wasn’t due to any mistake or oversight. It formed part of a careful campaign of protected industrial action by council workers and the Australian Services Union (ASU) in support of their negotiations for a new collective agreement at eight Melbourne councils.
Now, however, the situation is set to escalate. On Monday, the ASU announced a full strike on May 5, the day the Victorian government hands down its budget.
For residents, not having bins emptied can be frustrating and disruptive. But in this case, both skipping certain streets and walking off the job are lawful actions and legitimate industrial tactics under the Fair Work Act strike provisions.
What is the dispute about?
The ASU and its members (along with three other unions) are currently involved in negotiations for a multi-enterprise agreement to cover workers at eight Melbourne councils:
- Hume
- Merri-bek
- Yarra
- Darebin
- Melbourne
- Greater Dandenong
- Hobsons Bay
- Maribyrnong.
It isn’t just waste collection workers who are involved in these negotiations. Other groups employed by councils include library workers, planners, nurses and administrative and policy staff.
Council workers are seeking an initial 10% pay rise, followed by increases of 4% per year. This is higher than what councils have been willing to offer.
In a joint statement to the ABC, the eight councils said they had not been notified of the May 5 strike. The councils said they were “continuing to negotiate in good faith” and that:
The Australian Services Union’s industrial action is being undertaken very early in the bargaining process.
What the law says
Under the Fair Work Act, employees and their unions can take legally protected industrial action in support of their claims in bargaining. Strikes (refusing to attend work) and work bans (refusing to perform certain duties) are two of the most common forms.
But to be protected, these actions must follow certain rules. This includes obtaining a “protected action ballot order” from the Fair Work Commission. Once an order is made, the workers represented by the union in the negotiations are asked if they agree to take industrial action.
The ASU held a successful ballot of members at eight councils in March, authorising various forms of industrial action – including a full strike.
The partial approach
Among the 101 different types of proposed industrial action the workers were asked to approve was:
an indefinite or periodic ban on emptying/collecting material from selected residential bins and/or other rubbish or waste.
In three of the councils, partial work bans on waste collection from some streets went ahead in early April.
This may seem unfair to residents whose bins were not collected. But it is a well-established industrial technique, with a clear strategy.
Unlike a traditional “strike”, a partial work ban means employees will agree to do some, but not all, of their jobs. With this approach, workers are more likely to receive some pay. And the effect on individual residents is minimised. This lowers the risk of losing support from residents and the community.
Why the dispute is escalating
Partial work bans are deliberately designed to minimise the impact of industrial action – both on workers themselves and those who rely on their services.
At the same time, they place pressure on employers to move the needle at the bargaining table.
However, minimising the impact of industrial action also risks lengthening the dispute. If employers don’t feel the full impact of a strike, the pressure they are under to make concessions is also muted.
This means a union and its members may escalate to a full strike in order to ramp up pressure on the employer, which has happened in this case.
If the May 5 strike goes ahead, the workers will lose pay. But the aim is this will more quickly produce the desired trade-offs at the bargaining table.
Is it fair to residents?
Understandably, some residents of the affected Melbourne councils are unhappy with the disruption.
However, industrial action is a legitimate form of bargaining under the Fair Work Act, and an expression of the right of Australian workers to take strike action. These kinds of industrial actions are the only form of leverage in collective bargaining that workers have.
With plans to strike only for a day at this stage, the industrial action in Melbourne is likely to be far less disruptive than some recent international examples that have made global headlines. These include a three-week strike in Paris in 2023, and ongoing industrial action in Birmingham that has extended for more than a year.
Authors: Shae McCrystal, Professor of Labour Law, University of Sydney
