AMMA executive director, Industry Minna Knight said while the Fair Work Act review acknowledged problems in the greenfield framework, it had missed the mark on the resource industry’s concerns and risked making matters worse.

“The recommendation to extend the existing good faith bargaining provisions to greenfield negotiations will see no practical improvements and is a waste of time,” Knight said.

“But the most concerning proposals are around the compulsory involvement of Fair Work Australia on these matters.”

AMMA opposed the proposal that when negotiations for a greenfield agreement reached an impasse, Fair Work could conduct a form of arbitration, titled “last offer” arbitration, to determine the contents of an agreement.

It claimed this scenario would result in a situation where employers may be forced to agree or concede to union claims.

Last month, AMMA released RMIT University research which found since the Fair Work Act was in place, union tactics had stalled one in five resource projects.

AMMA said 19% of employers had experienced unions refusing to make agreements on new mining, oil and gas projects.

Reform to the greenfield agreement was a crucial area for the resource industry and the sector could not boost productivity, AMMA claimed, with Fair Work Australia getting involved in business activities.

“It is very important that greenfield determinations be based on an employer’s best offer as long as it meets the safety net of the better off overall test, the national employment standards and the modern award,” Knight said.

“Given that earnings in the mining industry are sitting at around $120,000 a year, the greenfield determination process should really come down to a sample assessment of terms and conditions to ensure they satisfy the better off overall test.”

The Business Council of Australia joined the chorus yesterday, describing the review panel for Fair Work Australia as failing to come to terms with the challenge of supporting Australia’s competitiveness in a changing economic landscape.

The BCA said the review panel had recommended some improvements however even if they were adopted, the system remained complex and wouldn’t support businesses and their workers when adapting to a competitive environment.

“If the operation of the act limits the flexibility of businesses to innovate and adapt swiftly, if they are diverting or discouraging managers from exploring new ways of working in a collaborative way, then the system is not operating in anyone’s best interests,” BCA chief executive Jennifer Westacott said.

However, the BCA was pleased with recommended changes which required unions to seek a majority determination before using protected industrial action to force enterprise bargaining.

Westacott pointed out it was also disappointing the panel had not provided businesses with more capacity to make decisions about the use of contractors and labour hire agencies to manage fluctuating peak periods for staff and specialist skill needs.

The review panel had recommended access to arbitration for deadlocked negotiations although rejected the proposal for employer-only agreements where unions failed to engage in good faith bargaining.

“The panel is also recommending that the greenfield site employer enter into negotiations with any union that may cover any future employee on site,” Westacott said.

“Not only does the approach fail to address employers’ concerns about the time it takes now to determine site agreements, it makes it even more complex and time consuming.”

The BCA was awaiting the government’s response to the panel’s report to find out whether the act would improve for businesses when responding to times of economic uncertainty.

This article first appeared in ILN's sister publication MiningNews.net.