Rio Tinto backgrounder 4

The RIO TINTO Campaign site

BACKGROUNDER No. 4

March 1998

RIO TINTO – INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS FOR WORKERS

Historically Rio Tinto has held the view that workers should be answerable directly to the company alone, with managerial control being absolute. Over the past fifteen years Rio Tinto has developed a "human resources" policy aimed at subjugating their workers to absolute management control. This approach leaves no place for trade unions as a means by which workers can protect themselves from unjust treatment. Unions are seen as a barrier to the control Rio Tinto seeks.

Rio Tinto's policies towards its workers are in direct breach of the charter of the International Labour Organisation, the UN agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognised human and labour rights. Founded in 1919, the ILO became the first specialised agency of the UN in 1946. The ILO formulates international labour standards in the form of Conventions and Recommendations setting minimum standards of basic labour rights: freedom of association, the right to organise, collective bargaining, abolition of forced labour, equality of opportunity and treatment, and other standards regulating conditions across the entire spectrum of work related issues.

The ILO's charter promotes collective bargaining and recognition of trade union rights. The ILO's conventions clearly state the rights of workers. The same right is embodied the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, (Article 23.4) 'Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his/her interests.' Australia is a signatory to these conventions. It is, therefore, important to recognise that the Australian trade union movement is not claiming any special privilege in its dealings with Rio Tinto, but is insisting on upholding universally recognised rights. These rights should be valued and protect - they are not `options' that Rio Tinto can choose to ignore because they interfere with the company's corporate agenda.

The contestants in this battle over workers' rights - Rio Tinto (which in 1996 alone made A$1,400 million in profit) and the unions representing the workers - do not have equal resources. Rio Tinto has deep pockets, whilst the workers have only their weekly pay packets, and the union only its members' donations, to find fighting funds from. The same unequal conditions apply at many of Rio Tinto's overseas operations, where the company's financial muscle has been used to quell challenges over community equity, land rights, and environmental concerns.

Many in Australia believe that if Rio Tinto wins its dispute with the CFMEU, then the right to belong to a union in Australia - and to have representation in dealings with employers - will be severely undermined. Similarly, if the company succeeds in overcoming organised opposition to its plans, those who take action in the future - whether it be on land-rights or environmental issues - will find their task so much harder. The move to get rid of workers' rights is an integral part of the 'anti-rights' campaign which certain multi-national companies are running to remove `obstacles' that stand in the way of their 'free-market' activities. There is a very real risk that rights which are commonly taken for granted will be lost unless there is collective action to protect them.