C2003/427, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 1487 (23 April 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER REDMOND

C2003/427

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING,
PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION

and

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS - COOKING

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re alleged failure to consult and
breach of disputes procedure in relation to the
introduction of safety glasses policy

SYDNEY

5.33 PM, MONDAY, 7 APRIL 2003

THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY VIDEO CONFERENCE IN SYDNEY

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Appearances in this matter, please.

PN2

MR J. WATSON: If the Commission pleases, I am from the AMWU and with me is MS R. FORTE and MR P. HOBBITS delegates from the site.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Braithwaite, are you going to put an appearance in?

PN4

MR BRAITHWAITE: Commissioner, I'm not a party to the application and I'm happy to make application if it assists in the process of this matter. I'd only highlight the fact that the CEPU are also a party to the agreement as far as this matter is concerned.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN6

MR S. BAKEWELL: If the Commission pleases, I seek leave to appear as agent on behalf of Electrolux Home Products. Appearing with me in this matter is MS C. BAKER.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Bakewell. Yes, Mr Watson?

PN8

MR WATSON: Commissioner, it's not my intention to rehash what you've heard in the previous matter because it's now been adjourned but the facts of the disputation are pretty well known to the Commission at this point in time. The matter is one of lack of consultation and failure to comply with the disputes procedure. The company has been approached by the elected on-site representatives on numerous occasions since December and several layers of management have been approached in relation to the new position of a site wide compulsory safety glasses policy and using the terminology that was used earlier that there has been various comments that have been provided to the company in relation to the policy. There's been feedback that's been provided to the company about the policy and there has been on numerous occasions approaches made by the elected on-site representatives to enter into appropriate consultation around the policy.

PN9

The intent of the consultation has also been communicated to the company in that the intent is to establish an appropriate safety glasses policy to apply at the site and that was the notion of consultation. On all occasions the company have ignored the approaches, comments and that feedback and they chose to unilaterally impose a site wide compulsory safety glasses policy. We believe that the matter should proceed to consultation first and then conciliation, if necessary.

PN10

We think that the parties would benefit from a recommendation from this Commission, that the company enter into consultation over the safety glasses policy with a view to arriving at an appropriate agreed policy, that the company refrain from further pursuance of the current policy until such consultation occurs, that the company give an undertaking to withdraw any counselling or warnings issued to any employees as a consequence of the current policy and that the Commission conciliate in the event consultation fails to resolve the dispute.

PN11

We believe that recommendation, Commissioner, would take the parties forward and maybe restore some company and union relationships that somewhat fell away in the last 12 to 18 months. My colleague has suggested it maybe for the last three years but I take the company to its - if I can find the one at this point in time, Commissioner, bear with me. I think the recommendation will go some way to trying to restore that relationship and meet the objectives that are contained within the company's 2001 enterprise agreement and was contained in previous enterprise agreements that have been registered with this Commission.

PN12

The number one objective in the 2001 agreement is to improve the relationship between the company, its employees and their unions. The company appears to be flagrantly ignoring our objective and has been in my estimation for between the last 12 and 18 months and I agree with my colleague, Mr Braithwaite, anything up to the last three years. I think that we need to go some way to remedying that problem. I'll leave my comments there, if the Commission pleases.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want to add anything, Mr Braithwaite?

PN14

MR BRAITHWAITE: Sir, I'd only say this that the proposition being portrayed by Mr Watson actually fits in as he's pointed out with the objectives but also in accordance with the disputes procedure in clause 14.1 in that the established custom and practice prevail at the enterprise while we work through the issues. It's a process that actually gets the parties to the table which at the moment hasn't occurred. So I would support the proposal by Mr Watson.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Bakewell?

PN16

MR BAKEWELL: Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

PN17

MR BAKEWELL: Thank you, Commissioner. Just in reply - because I think Mr Manuel has perhaps quite adequately covered, the ground - in relation to the matters put forward by Mr Watson, we do need to say, Commissioner, that this what is now a six or seven-month process that has been undertaken by the company at the site.

PN18

Mr Manuel pointed out that that process had its origins in the Occupational Health and Safety Committee. It's been discussed at the Consultative Committee structure that exists at the company. It's been the subject of a trial of various types of safety glasses. It's been the subject of employee surveys and feedback and following all of that, an endorsed policy and procedure, endorsed by the Safety Committee, to wear these glasses. Finally, prior to implementation in the period February to March, there was a two-month trial period during which employees could raise with the company any particular discomfort or issues that they had had with the wearing of these safety glasses. That, as I said, has been referred to by Mr Watson and the notification to the company that there was indeed anything amiss occurred in the second-last week of March, the second-last week of what has been a six-month process.

PN19

I might also add, Commissioner, in respect of the company not taking account of issues, that the company only became aware of the fact there was a concern with the safety glasses by a rumour that was circulating on the shop floor about a week or two ago. Upon hearing this, Commissioner, the company has approached no fewer than three delegates from the AMWU on, I think the evidence will show, four or five occasions to ask the delegates whether indeed there was a dispute because the company was hearing rumours.

PN20

On each of these occasions the company was informed that there would be a meeting of members and it would be informed if there was a dispute. The company informed the delegates that if there was a dispute we need to follow the dispute procedure and proposed to the delegates, Commissioner, that the delegates set up a meeting between the company and the union officials to discuss the matter if indeed there was a dispute. The response to that, Commissioner, was a walk-out.

PN21

That same process was repeated the next day, Commissioner. Again the company approached the delegates saying we had had industrial action the previous day and asking, "Do we have a dispute? do you wish to invoke the dispute settlement procedure and we'll follow the agreed path?" Again there was a walk-out.

PN22

So we have some concern, Commissioner, about the allegations put that the company is not following the dispute settlement procedure. It is of concern to us that a process can take place outside of the Commission when indeed Mr Watson suggested the process of discussing the matter with the union and that could have taken place in a more congenial environment, let us say.

PN23

In relation to the proposal to discuss the matter with the AMWU, the company is always open to discuss the matter with the AMWU, as it invited the delegates to do prior to the last walk-out. We are happy to work through that. We are happy to work through the dispute settlement procedure.

PN24

What we do say, Commissioner, is that while that is occurring the current safety glasses policy, as endorsed at the OH&S Committee, continue. It is the company's obligation, Commissioner, is to provide a safe working environment and the company cannot have and will not have its duty to supply a safe workplace undermined by this process continuing. Fifty-two injuries, Commissioner, across the work site in this place in just over one year is a large number of injuries.

PN25

On that basis, Commissioner, on the basis that the safety glasses continue to be worn whilst the parties are discussing this matter, we will indeed entertain those discussions with Mr Watson pursuant to the dispute settlement procedure in place. Thank you.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: If the company had thought that there was going to be an industrial dispute or that there was a problem, why didn't they attempt to contact the unions and have these discussions?

PN27

MR BAKEWELL: Commissioner, the delegates are the nominated union representatives on site. The first step in the dispute settlement procedure is for the company to try to resolve the matter with the union delegates. If it fails at that level, Commissioner, we then invite the union officials to become involved.

PN28

We took the delegates at their word, Commissioner. When we asked them if there was a dispute we were told we would have to await the outcome of the meeting of members. The meeting of members endorsed a walk-out, Commissioner. That's where we were.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Watson, anything to add?

PN30

MR WATSON: Yes, Commissioner. Our convenor of shop stewards on the site has been raising concerns of members since late last year. He has raised them with various individuals of management almost every week since late last year. The consistent response that he has been met with is that Maurice wants it so Maurice will get it, in this case the compulsory wearing of safety glasses policy. That's been the response to every level of management that the convenor has raised it with. So it is misleading for Mr Bakewell, or for the company, to suggest to you that no concerns were raised until the last week or two before some disputation occurred. That is incorrect,

PN31

As far as the consultation is concerned, the company have had ample notification that there is concern but it has chosen, I believe quite deliberately, not to want to address those concerns by way of any consultation with the union and it is reflective of a direction that has been taken by the company, to marginalise the union, its members and its elected representatives. Both on site and off site there has been the consistent direction of the company for quite a considerable time now.

PN32

That is why we say that your recommendation to enter into consultation with the unions is the proper way to go and is consistent with the current enterprise agreement that applies.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I'm concerned that, on the number of occasions that Electrolux has come before me, both parties appear to be of the view that the other party is breaching the dispute settling procedure. Neither side seems to want to give an inch in respect of that and this can't continue, in my opinion.

PN34

In respect of the current matter before me, it does concern me, if Mr Bakewell's numbers are correct, that there have been over 50 eye injuries at the production plant in the last 12 months. That is a matter which surely should concern the unions for their members too, as it would concern me.

PN35

I make the following recommendation in respect of this matter: that the final warning given to the member who was involved in the dispute last week for not wearing safety glasses be withdrawn by the company, that the members of the unions continue to wear the safety glasses as requested by the company until the negotiations that I direct occur between the unions and the company over the issue of safety glasses issue on site.

PN36

Those discussions should take place forthwith and report back to me if the parties have failed to resolve the issue at 9 o'clock on Tuesday, 6 May, that is, prior to the Electrolux matter that I'm coming over to conciliate. If the parties have not been able to reach any agreement at that time I'll make arrangements for the formal part of the disputes procedure to be put into motion on that day. I further recommend that no further industrial action occur over this until I'm present. Is that understood?

PN37

MR WATSON: Yes, Commissioner.

PN38

MR BRAITHWAITE: Yes, sir.

PN39

MR BAKEWELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. The Commission stands adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [5.45pm]