Introduction
This paper will talk about the employment relations from two perspectives, a unitatist perspective and a pluralist perspective, and then make an analysis of the Australian Waterfront Dispute 1997-1998 from these two perspectives. In order to make clear the changes of the stevedoring industry in Australia, one has to understand the disputes occurred between 1997 and 1998. These disputes were not simple because they demonstrated the employment relations in the industry or even the whole economy (Trinca and Davies, 2000).
Thus, what is the Australian Waterfront Dispute 1997-1998? And how it happens and changes? About these two questions, the paper will give a clear outline on the changes and related issues of the Dispute in its third part. And to be in accordance with the question requirements, the paper will also tackle what are unitarist and pluralist perspectives in the second part. The detailed information about these two perspectives are based on the PPTs in class and related theories, as well as some philosophical ideas. After clarifying the two perspectives, making an analysis of the Australian Waterfront Dispute 1997-1998 is essential to answer the question. As mentioned, this section will be included in the third part. Now it comes to the last part, the conclusion part. In this part, the paper will give an overall evaluation on the two perspectives in the process of dispute changes, and show the author’s standpoint on this issue.

Analysis of Australian Waterfront Dispute 1997-1998
The case study gives the example of the Australian Waterfront Dispute 1997-1998. And this paper will make analysis of the dispute changes from two perspectives above.
The first stage of the Dispute: MUA
The big changes in the stevedoring industry of Australia are two organizations, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). The appearance of these two organizations leaked out the defects of the industry. The reason of disputes is the impartiality of power and the unequal employment relations. MAU is a kind of collective cooperation which always makes reactions to the low pay, poor conditions and dangerous (Wiseman, 1998). It is a system focusing on daily work of employees and taking the control of the whole waterfront business. But such kind of organization can still achieve a fairly equal competitive position for workers. However, the organization has not escaped from the hands of the Communist Party of Australia which resists changes with a rigid attitude. As a result, this economic organization was elapsed into the political conflicts. After that, some want to save the whole industry by monopoly. Indeed, this kind of idea has some effects on the industrial development. Two dominate stevedoring companies achieved a reward to control the waterfront and the MAU became the sole representative of the workers in Australia.
However, it is not lasting because the so-called secret contract with a foreign country was leaked out and the public and related departments began to voice and oppose to the organization. As the disputes between MAU and Patrick continue, there comes a strategy holding that the behaviors of the MAU has worked against the Workplace Relations Act 1996, a law against monopoly( (Sheridan, 1998). As the voice of the public prompts, the strategy begins to show its advantages.
According to the Briefing Paper of the Australian Cabinet, the key to the success of the strategy is to take overall control of the national ports as fast as possible and then set up a pattern for the national growing movements (Australian Cabinet Briefing Paper, 1997). It is until the collapses of the workers’ strike that the strategy becomes low-lighted and the Australian government begins to be aware that there must be changes in the employment relations of the stevedoring industry. Therefore, it comes up with several supportive actions which include: (1) providing strategic advices; (2) providing legal assistance and medical care services; (3) employing capable worker and accommodating them; (4) be responsible for the public expenditures. These actions have played certain role in improving the employment relations of the industry, but it has not changed the nature of the contemporary formation of the employment relations.
The MAU and Patrick are elapsed into the court affairs. They make great efforts to benefit themselves and the courts spend a long time to process the affair. The reason why the two parties have become contrary parties from partners is that they want to safeguard their own benefits without complying with each other. But unfortunately, the Patrick company lost in the affair, as a result, the MUA controls the whole industry and wins the representative right of the stevedoring industry (Wiseman, 1998). The verdict of the High Court is to reach an agreement which confirms the representative role of the MAU. But the MAU has to make some changes, including: (1) introducing causal into the industry; (2) regulating the working time and methods of the workers; (3) paying attention to the efficiency of the hourly and daily work: (4) introducing the measures of multiple skills and productivity. This agreement has some impacts on the situation of the industry, but it has not changed the situation in which the MAU controls the whole industry solely. Such kind of situation can not be sustained and a new idea comes as the Dispute continues.
Changes by ACTU
That is a stance the ACTU takes creatively to response to the situation. At this time, the mass media in Australia has played its unique role in reflecting the public opinions. With the continuous efforts of the media, the MAU begins to turning attention to people power and the assemblies of peaceful community. But there are no goods out of the major ports at the time because of the workers’ strike. Generally speaking, the police will take actions to suppress the strike, but it has no move to improve the situation. They do not want to break the strike, but to change the current situation in another way (Wiseman, 1998).
Actually, the final verdict is in the hands of the public. Meanwhile, the government in Australia has obeyed the willing of the public and begins to interfere with the disputes. As a result, the employment relations in Australia have been changed completely. It has changed from the unitarist approach to the pluralist approach. As it is continued, what kind of changes and situation will be brought to the society, especially the employees or the workers? This is the new situation of the relations and it gives a comparable example to analyze and study, thus bringing out some new ideas and revolutions.
The action changes of the related departments have shown some demonstrations to the public. The action by strike-breakers shows that the strategy for the management of labor is false in this situation. The role of the industrial management is to give the full play to the value of the labor force. Only under the circumstance each related institution in a balanced situation can achieve the best result and last for a long time or even forever. But in this case, when two parties have interest conflicts, the management by the two parties, the government and other related bodies is not the one to try to establish a structure in which the related two parties can reach shared goals, thus striking a balance to keep improvement. Besides this, the management has not made to realize the importance of the trade unions, which in turn makes the unions out of work and the employment relations unsatisfying. Therefore, the implication here is, when two parties come across interest conflicts, all management by related parties should be the one to make full use of the specialists in both organizations so as to regulate the work of unions and employees, because the better employment relationship between unions and employees could reduce threats posed by the improvement-needed situation (Tull, 1997).
This action by related parties has shown that, when the management style of employers is a collectivist one, the interest of each party can be protected and improved. Although such a style shows acceptance to employee representatives, it is still poor in handling with changes, because it lays emphasis on the stability of the current situation. The situation is that, when the related parties have no better management strategy to make responses to dynamic situation, such kind of stability will not be achieved. However, in order to create a better management style, the employees must be fully aware of the importance of the unions and show their sincere respect to employees’ autonomy. The reason is that removing unions would harm the ongoing relationship between the management body and its employees and too much control would cause revolt, a contrary result of the anticipation (Cooper, 2013).
Analysis of the dispute changes
The perspective change from a unitarist perspective to a pluralist one has benefited a lot to the stevedoring industry in Australia and given a better example to other industries in tacking their respective employment relations. The reason why such changes can bring out benefits to the industry and the whole economy is that an unitarist perspective in addressing the employment relations can easily lead to monopoly and vicious competitions which will not make the development of the industry and the whole economy last further while the pluralist perspective can help achieve a balance among parties, such as company, the government and the employees, thus be in favor of the further development of the industry and the whole economy.
The unitarist perspective is like a father with his children. It is like a production from the feudal society in which the emperor takes the control of everything and holds the final right to make decisions, no matter they are right or wrong. But the pluralist perspective is just like a forest in which there are much kind of trees and each kind of tree has its own role and function, while they have a same shared goal to reach, to make the forest large and flourishing.
Conclusion
Due to the respective advantages and disadvantages of the two perspectives, the author thinks that it is better for the related parties to tackle the Australian Waterfront Dispute 1997-1998 from the pluralist perspective. For this case study, the author will make a contrast with the political system in America, which makes a balance among three Powers, the executive power, the judicial power and the legislative power. This kind of system is good example to explain the pluralist perspective. Such a system has lasted for over 200 years and been modeled by many countries. But there is no country in the world today enjoying the benefits of the system, because they have not learned the real essence of the system which is democracy.
In order to improve the employment relations of industries, all parties concerned should make their efforts strike a balance among power distribution and for a democratic situation. If so, all parties can make their own greatest contributions to the organization or the industry, thus the situation will be better and better for further improvement.
What’s more, if employees are allowed to speak out their opinions to the organization, it will be both better to the company and themselves, as they will be more willing to be loyal to the organization. For the industry, it is really important to balance all the relations about the concerned parties. Moreover, if the organization can handle the relations between supervisors and the workers and get more democratic ideas, it will do a great favor for the success. Only the force power is not enough for the development of a corporation. Therefore, the author holds that the pluralist perspective can better serve the dispute resolution, as it can absorb different kinds of viewpoints from different people, not only from the managers, but also the workers.

REFERENCES
1. Australia Cabinet Briefing Paper. 1997. ‘Waterfront Strategy’, Unpublished paper, Canberra.
2. Cooper,B. 2013. Employment relations 2th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.
3. Sheridan, T. 1998. ‘Regulating the Waterfront Industry 1950-1968’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 441-460.
4. Trinca, H. & Davies, A. 2000. Waterfront: The Battle that Changed Australia. Random House, NSW.
5. Tull, M 1997, ‘The Fremantle Port Authority: A Case Study in Micro Economic Reform’, Economic Papers, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 33-53.
6. Wiseman, J 1998, ‘Here to Stay? The 1997-1998 Australian Waterfront Dispute and its Implications’,Labour and Industry, vol. 9, no., pp. 1-16