Waterfront dispute case settled

A settlement has been reached in relation to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission litigation concerning the waterfront.

The settlement has been endorsed today by the Federal Court of Australia.

The settlement provides that a damages fund of up to $7.5 million, funded by Patrick Stevedore Holdings Pty Ltd, will be available for small businesses damaged by the boycotts during the dispute.

Also, the Maritime Union of Australia has provided a formal undertaking to the Federal Court not to repeat boycotts alleged to be unlawful by the ACCC during the dispute.

The damages fund will be administered by a trustee and payments will be subject to proof of losses arising from the waterfront dispute.

Small businesses which do not have an alternative claim for compensation, such as insurance, will be given priority over other claimants on the fund. A limit will be set on individual claims.

The undertaking is for two years.

There is an associated dispute settlement procedure.

The undertaking does not apply to normal industrial relations actions protected under the TPA or Workplace Relations Act 1996. It also does not apply to lawful conduct to ensure compliance with relevant occupational health and safety legislation nor for the protection of international seafarers through the MUA's flags of convenience campaign.

"The ACCC is satisfied with the outcome," ACCC Chairman, Professor Allan Fels, said today. "Its objectives were:

• compensation to small business damaged by the dispute; and
• an appropriate undertaking to the Court by the MUA, as is usual in TPA cases, not to repeat similar behaviour".

These objects have been met and the ACCC has agreed to settle the case.

Background

In 1996 Federal Parliament greatly strengthened the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The ACCC is responsible for seeking compliance with the Act. The ACCC did not take sides in the waterfront dispute but it was concerned to ensure that there were no breaches of the law during that dispute.

The ACCC believes that there were substantial, very public breaches of the boycott provisions of the Act which damaged small business and exporters. It issued several warnings to the MUA which were ignored. It had no option then but to take court action. It did not seek penalties. Its actions were directed to obtaining compensation for small businesses damaged by unlawful boycott behaviour and securing of appropriate court orders or undertakings to the Court by the MUA not to repeat similar unlawful behaviour in the future (a standard Trade Practices Act resolution).

The parties to the dispute approached the ACCC in mid-June about a settlement. The ACCC made it clear that it was prepared to settle and advised the parties of the parameters of a possible settlement. These included a compensation fund and a consent court order or an undertaking to the Court which had a similar effect.

Regarding the funding of the compensation payment the ACCC indicated at all times that it had no views as to who paid as it was not involved in taking sides in the rights and wrongs of the waterfront dispute. Its concern was merely the protection of the legitimate interests of small businesses damaged by unlawful actions that occurred during the dispute. There was no effective response by the parties to these proposals until last week. Claims by the MUA that the ACCC was delaying completion of the total agreement on the waterfront were without foundation. Claims that the total resolution of the waterfront dispute would 'come undone' unless the ACCC withdrew its case always lacked foundation and were merely an attempt to avoid compliance with the ACCC's reasonable proposals for settlement.

The ACCC is continuing to investigate a number of matters on the product market side of the waterfront.

The ACCC has perceived it as important to the integrity of the Act that it should have sought to uphold the law during the dispute.