Abstract
The 1986 nurses'strike was atypical in terms of duration, industry, and primary cause. An analysis of the making of the award that became the subject of the strike challenges the widespread perception that the new award was definitively a consent matter. Consent and arbitrated components, together with important issues deferred for post-award negotiation, were each the subject of conflict. Mutually reinforcing choices made by the union, the employer and the tribunal produced an award that was unacceptable in the field. Choices contributing to post-award conflict were: the preference accorded advocacy over negotiation; absence of consultation with con stituencies ; pre-eminence accorded tribunal policy (the Principles) and the tribunal's non-interventionist posture. The Principles proved highly elastic and facilitated the masking of serious weaknesses in the award. The union's strategic choices precipitated an internal crisis reflected in a change of leadership, and led to the union becoming relatively ACTU-dependent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.