Thirty labour dispute applications are listed for hearing today by the Fair Work Commission. The full list is: Playford City Soccer and Community Club Inc (Shears), Genesee & Wyoming Australia Pty Ltd (Staunton), The Carer’s Phone Pty Ltd (Polymiadis), MSS Security Pty Ltd (Williams), Mrs Australia Pty Ltd (Banda), Rexel Holdings Australia (Devine), G A Quality Chickens (Kay), Department of Human Services (Head), JBS Australia Pty Ltd (Blyth), Hepburn Shire Council (Ratcliffe), Yooralla (Hussainy), SPC Ardmona Operations Limited (Desveaux), The Islamic Society of Victoria Inc (Abou-Eid), Patrick Projects Pty Ltd (Deeney, Hughes, Park, Seiffert), Shack & Kerr Motors Pty Ltd (Butcher), BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd (Wiltshire), Dominelli Group Pty Ltd (Zhang), Top Notch Builders Pty Ltd (Doyle), Sunnyfield (Adineh), StarTrack Express Pty Ltd (Benson), Picturesque Hair (Edgecombe), Konica Minolta Business Solutions Australia Pty Ltd (Sheridan), Biraban Local Aboriginal Land Council (Pattel-Gray), Bunjum Aboriginal Early Childhood and Family Services Pty Ltd (White), SkyWorkers Pty Ltd (Mandeno), Commonwealth Bank (Walker), Composite Industries Group Pty Ltd (Chan).
October 20, 2017
Fourteen labour dispute cases are listed for hearing today in the Fair Work Commission. The full list is: Alfies Towing (Collins), Rexel Holdings Australia (Devine), CFT Security Pty Ltd atf Cusack Family Trust (Murtagh), u&u Recruitment Partners (Tibenszky), Mr Barry Kyle Castle (Sippel), Red Energy (Taggart), Menzwear Direct Pty Ltd (McIntyre), Furniture Galore Pty Ltd (Broadhead), Australian Administration Services (Dobson), Swing Shift Nurses (Tysoe), Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd (King), Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Limited (Colwell), Sealy of Australia (NSW) Pty Ltd (McNamara), Re-Engage Youth Services Incorporated (Patterson).
October 19, 2017
Eighteen unfair dismissal/labour dispute applications are listed for hearing today in the Fair Work Commission. The list contains: Uniting Communities Incorporated (Crocker), Woolworths Limited and Woolworths (South Australia) Pty Limited (Penttila), Accolade Wines Australia Limited (Emery), Collection House Pty Ltd (Tareha), Spotless Group Pty Ltd (Forsyth), Workforce Variable Pty Ltd (Nagan), FSAC Ltd & Pitt and Others (Kefford), FNQ Barbershop (Prosser), Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (Giordano), Australian Greek Welfare Society Limited (Rakkas), The Trustee for the Werribee Plaza Bingo Association Unit Trust (Powderly), Western Health (Ghosh), Shire of Broome (Hankinson), Serco (Morgan), SwanCare Group (Luiters), Universal LED Lighting Pty Ltd (Dawod), BIC Services Pty Ltd (Islam).
October 18, 2017
Twenty-one labour dispute application will be heard by the Fair Work Commission today. The full list is: The Heran Building Group Pty Ltd (Nieberg), The Salvation Army AUE (Phillips), BSK Pty Ltd (Firth), Department of Health and Ageing (Moseley), Victoria Police (Brierley, Chuck), Casuarina All Sports Club Inc (Davidson), Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd (Demosthenous), Kuehne & Nagel Pty Ltd (Langley), USG Boral Building Products Pty Ltd (Palmer), Superior Accounting Solutions Pty Ltd (Ryan), Bunnings (Krnjic), American Golf Supplies Pty Ltd (Kelly), K&J Solutions (Julian), Moree Local Aboriginal Land Council (Leslie-Briggs), Pacific Towers Beach Resort (Towler), Qantas Airways Ltd (Staniforth), Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Limited (Colwell), Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd (Holer), Aurrum Pty Ltd (Hoppenbrouwer).
October 17, 2017
Seventeen unfair dismissal/labour dispute applications will be heard by the Fair Work Commission today. The full list is: Victory Church (Dailly), Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville (Muhling), FSAC Ltd & Pitt and Others (Kefford), York Territory Realty (Rogers), ACT Health Directorate (Hays, Jones), Developing East Arnhem Limited (Foster), Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd (Demosthenous), Ulukile Pty Ltd ITF Wenckowski/Nanni Family Trust & Wenckowski (Drapac), Victoria University (Luchini), JJ’s Heating and Cooling Services (Tran), Larjane Pty Ltd (Molloy), Curtin University of Technology (Lichtenzveig), Zambrero – Victoria Park (Vidovich), Covermore Insurance Services Ltd (Nguyen), Aurrum Pty Ltd (Hoppenbrouwer), Kangaroo Island SeaLink Pty Ltd (Vick).
October 17, 2017
ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – respondent engaged services of owner drivers carrying out deliveries from Melbourne Airport – previously engaged under terms and conditions contained in ‘Independent Contractor Agreement’ – respondent terminated agreement previous year and offered different arrangements called ‘New Operation Model’ – respondent explained to owner drivers about cost model which underpinned new arrangements – union subsequently took issue with whether new arrangements complied with employer obligations under Toll Group – TWU Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (Agreement), particularly subclause 17(f) – parties unable to resolve dispute in workplace and notified Commission – union claimed new arrangements put in place by respondent with owner drivers did not comply with terms of Agreement because cost model on which they were based did not ensure owner drivers received labour component as part of those arrangements, which was equal to applicable wage rate in Agreement – new arrangement was based on an hourly rate, which when all other costs were taken out, left an amount that was less than what an employee driving the same vehicle under the relevant Local Agreement would receive – Agreement must be interpreted in context of its obvious purpose and intent; to protect wages and job security of employees by ensuring that rates provided to owner drivers did not undercut those entitlements – submitted this the plain and ordinary meaning – respondent submitted that only obligation subclause 17(f) created was to pay same labour rate to an owner driver as it was required to pay to an employee driving the same capacity vehicle – submitted this meant ‘the base rate of pay’ an employee covered by Agreement would receive – submitted that Commission was also required to consider whether dispute actually existed under s.739 of FW Act, and whether it had jurisdiction to deal with dispute in manner proposed by union – Schefenacker considered – Commission satisfied union, on behalf of its employee members, entitled to lodge dispute in regard to whether subclause 17(f) was being complied with, and Commission was empowered to deal with that dispute because it pertained to employer-employee relationship, given the potential impact of changes upon employees’ job security – satisfied conclusion consistent with decision of Full Bench in Schefenacker – Commission also satisfied subclause 17(f) had plain and unambiguous meaning and should be interpreted in that way – respondent’s approach rejected – subclause 17(f) contained within series of provisions that dealt with employer’s commitment to job security, and recognition by parties that job security was important issue for employees – against that background clause was essentially concerned to ensure that owner drivers engaged by respondent received a labour rate equal to wage rate that would be payable to an employee who was driving same vehicle driven or ‘utilised’ by owner driver – obvious intent was to prevent respondent from engaging owner drivers on a lower cost basis to cost of employing employee drivers, because of obvious implications for job security of those employees – if obligation in subclause 17(f) discharged in way that respondent now contended would ignore plain meaning of what was intended when words in subclause 17(f) considered on basis of what reasonable person would understand them to mean in terms of how such arrangements apply to owner drivers – Commission not satisfied that owner drivers now receiving a labour rate equal to applicable wage rate payable for relevant vehicle utilised by owner driver at the site at which they are engaged, as required by subclause 17(f) – Commission prepared to offer further assistance to parties in any matter arising as consequent of decision. Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Toll Ipec P/L t/a Toll Ipec
October 17, 2017
ANTI-BULLYING – reasonable management action – s.789FC Fair Work Act 2009 – application for an order to stop bullying – applicant an employee of Alice Springs Town Council (ASTC) and alleged bullying by several employees of ASTC, namely Georgina Davison (Manager Library Services), Clare Fisher (Library Operations Team Leader) and Skye Price (Director Corporate and Community Services) – applicant employed by ASTC in Alice Springs Public Library since 2005 and currently a Children’s and Youth Services Officer – six broad matters requiring determination as to whether any, some or all were bullying – Commission found that decision by ASTC to commence performance counselling of applicant not unreasonable conduct and instead, reasonable management action carried out in reasonable manner – found that disciplinary letter dated 23 June 2016, which initiated disciplinary meeting in relation to applicant’s response to ‘respect’ email was unreasonable conduct – found that ASTC’s decision after a review of applicant’s grievances did not amount to unreasonable conduct – found that First Allegations Letter dated 12 October 2016 alleging that applicant contravened Code of Conduct was unreasonable conduct – found that Second Allegations Letter dated 20 October 2016 initiating disciplinary meeting for range of matters not previously raised with applicant was unreasonable conduct – found ASTC’s revocation of applicant’s February 2017 annual leave was unreasonable conduct – Commission held that applicant had been bullied at work within meaning of s.789FD of the FW Act – found there was risk of further conduct that may be regarded as bullying – ordered that requirement for applicant to apologise to Ms Fisher be set aside; that requirement for applicant to respond and answer to matters set out in First and Second Allegations letters be set aside; that ASTC approve any future application by applicant for annual leave, provided she has complied with its leave applications processes and policies and has sufficient leave accrued; that applicant participate in performance counselling in relation to matters set out in performance appraisal; that ASTC’s assessment of applicant’s performance be no earlier than four months from the date she returns to work; that applicant complies with ASTC’s Code of Conduct, policies and procedures; ASTC to arrange for conduct of anti-bullying and positive communication training, and; ASTC to review its procedures for commencing disciplinary action, handling interpersonal or workplace bullying grievances and for investigating complaints of workplace bullying. Burbeck v Alice Springs Town Council and Ors
October 17, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – applicant had been employed with respondent for over 18 years – at the time of dismissal applicant was a Paintline Operator – applicant claimed his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable – respondent dismissed applicant for serious and wilful misconduct – respondent alleged applicant had engaged in ‘horse-play’ on 11 May 2017 contrary to company policy and safety obligations – respondent concluded that applicant intentionally sprayed an unsuspecting employee with paint, hitting that employee on the back of his neck and back – applicant was summarily dismissed on 7 June 2017 – Commission found applicant’s conduct was serious and wilful misconduct – found the serious misconduct was contrary to company policy concerning the safe use of spray guns by Paintline Operators – found it was conduct that constituted a valid reason for summary dismissal – Commission did not accept applicant’s claim his conduct was a mere accident – found conduct was intentional or reckless and dismissal for conduct contrary to policy was not a disproportionate response – Commission satisfied applicant was notified of a valid reason for dismissal and given a full opportunity to respond – applicant pointed to the fact that had he continued in employment until the factory closure on 6 October 2017, he would have been eligible for a significant redundancy payment – Commission found the dismissal must stand or fall on the basis of the conduct complained of and its surrounding circumstances, not on basis of a future exigency – Commission found applicant’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – Commission not required to consider the question of remedy as there was no unfair dismissal – application dismissed. Graham v Walker Australia P/L t/a Tenneco
