Compare Thiess's AWU maintenance workers EBA with Serco's - Thiess workers sold because of the GILLARD/WILSON slush fund
In early 1993 the Kennett Government let tenders to outsource Melbourne Water maintenance work.
The process was competitive and amongst other requirements, tenderers had to demonstrate their plans to reform work practices.
Thiess was one of the successful tenderers along with Serco (each for a geographic region of Melbourne).
The AWU covered workers for each company. Robyn McLeod was the AWU's organiser for both organisations.
Each company was building an enterprise agreement based on existing award conditions.
Theiss paid into Wilson's slush fund.
Serco apparently did not.
On 9 July 1993 Robyn McLeod made a statutory declaration certifying the conditions in Theiss's Enterprise Agreement.
Serco's was not made until 8 December - 5 months later.
Serco told the Commission of the difficult negotiations it had with the AWU, referring to intractable disputes.
Five months earlier, Thiess had told the Commission they had "a very good agreement.
And why wouldn't Thiess think it had a "very good agreement"?
Thiess got away with paying its workers much less than Serco was forced to.
Each organisation had 5 grades of maintenance worker.
Thiess showed the rates as weekly and in reverse order - Serco's were published as annual rates. I've calculated Thiess's rates as the weekly rate shown, times 52.
When Thiess called in casuals, they paid the normal rates plus 20%. Serco was slugged 25%.
Serco's agreement included prohibitions against Unfair Dismissal. Thiess's did not.
Thiess could do what it liked with contractors, use them to their hearts content - Serco had no such accommodation.
The list of major differences goes on an on and on.
And all because Thiess paid secret commissions in a secret deal to the GILLARD/WILSON slush fund.