In a move reflecting Fiji’s long‑standing emphasis on dialog and constitutional processes to manage industrial tension, the Fiji Times reported on January 9, 1985, that the government had drawn up contingency plans in case a threatened strike by the Fiji Trades Union Congress (FTUC) materializes. Prime Minister Kamisese Mara stated that the government was prepared to declare a state of national emergency if the strike jeopardized the country’s welfare. He warned that mass dismissals of government employees could be employed, if lawful, and even the de-registration of trade unions remained a possibility within the framework of the law.
Mara also signaled willingness to engage in talks with the unions if they withdrew their strike threat, noting that the government would not negotiate under duress. An offer to address wage‑freeze anomalies remained on the table, provided the legal regulations allowed such adjustments, and an “economic summit” was planned for January 23 and 24 to address the unions’ broader grievances and to explore job creation in the wake of discussions around the Fiji Employment Mission’s findings from the previous year.
Before any talks could take place, the unions chose not to attend the summit. Mara emphasized that, should the strike commence on February 12, the government had prepared routine measures to maintain essential services. He asked the public to rely on the public service’s core personnel to ensure continuity and to seek help from citizens who cared about the nation’s interests.
The government’s stated readiness to declare a state of emergency underscored the seriousness with which it viewed any disruption to critical infrastructure. Mara noted that the authorities would rely on disciplined services to keep vital operations—electricity and water supply, communications, fuel supplies, and airports—functioning as a matter of priority. Despite the tension, Mara expressed a desire for the Tripartite Forum to continue its work even though the unions had pulled out.
Context and implications:
– The episode highlights Fiji’s early reliance on a structured tripartite framework—government, unions, and employers—to mediate disputes and avert wide‑scale disruption.
– The emphasis on maintaining essential services during strikes shows a history of prioritizing national welfare and public safety in times of industrial unrest.
– The willingness to discuss wage adjustments and to convene an economic summit demonstrates a preference for negotiation and consultative processes over punitive measures.
Commentary:
The 1985 stance reveals a government aiming to balance workers’ rights with national interests, signaling confidence in legal avenues and dialogue as means to resolve tensions. The option of emergency powers, while extreme, served as a deterrent to escalation and as a reminder of the state’s obligation to safeguard critical services for citizens. The incident also foreshadows the recurring pattern in Fiji’s labor relations: legitimate grievances prompting mediation and structured dispute resolution, rather than confrontation alone.
Key takeaways:
– A credible threat to essential services prompted predefined contingency planning.
– The government dangled severe but lawful options (emergency measures, mass dismissals, deregistration) to deter escalation, while keeping channels open for dialogue.
– Economic discussions and tripartite engagement were prioritized, even when unions withdrew from formal talks.
– The commitment to keep critical infrastructure running remains a consistent priority in Fiji’s approach to industrial relations.
Overall, the episode reflects a principled, cautious approach to industrial action: protect the public, pursue dialogue, and use established legal and institutional mechanisms to seek fair outcomes for workers while sustaining the country’s essential functions. Positive takeaway: the emphasis on mediation and tripartite dialogue suggests a stable framework that could help avert prolonged disruption and foster constructive solutions in future disputes.
Leave a comment