C2004/1820, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 1890 (21 May 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 10920

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD

C2004/1820

CHALMERS INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED

and

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re Settlement of Disputes -
clause 34 of the agreement

MELBOURNE

3.05 PM, TUESDAY, 11 MAY 2004

Continued from 3.3.04

PN54

MR A. WOOD: I appear for the TWU.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Wood. And you are with Mr Burns and Mr Cotterill.

PN56

MR WOOD: Yes, and Mr Cotterill.

PN57

MR R. GOODEN: I appear for Chalmers Industries and MR C. WEBSTER.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, thank you. Now my understanding about this matter is this is a matter I was contacted about this morning by the company due to a stoppage of work by company employees which has taken place at least some of the day today. And it concerns at least the application of the disputes procedure of the enterprise agreement which arises from an incident in the workplace where an employee of Chalmers Industries who was employed on an afternoon shift became abusive towards a supervisor, and as a consequence of that he - the supervisor - indicated to management that he felt in fear of that particular employee and was not prepared to work with him on afternoon shift and that led the company to propose that the employee be transferred to day shift, but on a three months trial I was told and with the opportunity for his transfer to be reconsidered after then to three months if his behaviour in a three month period was satisfactory.

PN59

And what happened out of that, and I understand there was a consultative committee meeting this morning - well, yesterday I am sorry - at which this matter wasn't mentioned, I can't understand why it wasn't mentioned, and then today the management turn up and the workers decide they are not working. Now I will just look first of all to Mr Webster and Mr Gooden; is that broadly what has happened from a management standpoint?

PN60

MR GOODEN: Yes.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: That is what I have been informed. Now, Mr Wood, this is about the third time we have been sitting in this courtroom talking about this particular company, and the employees of the company deciding to stop work. Now, there is two sides to every story, I am aware of that, and you will give me your side in a minute no doubt. But each time we have been in here I have emphasised to both parties that people don't stop work as a first response to a problem; you can come to this Commission if you have got a problem. You know, your view might be that the individual employee was badly done by, that he has been treated unfairly. Fine, raise it in the consultative committee, deal with it in your normal due processes. I know you probably have done that already to an extent and have argued that the disputes procedure which provides for the status quo to be maintained should apply.

PN62

Now, I will have a response to that when you give me that argument in a minute because on the face of it this is a situation where a supervisor was put in some degree of fear because of the behaviour of the employee. This is what my impression is, okay? Now if a supervisor abuses an employee, I would regard that very seriously, wouldn't have a bar of it.

PN63

A supervisor cannot abuse an employee and put him in fear, cannot swear at him, curse at him, call him all the low down individuals under the sun and then expect that everybody turns a blind to that, and put him in fear of what might happen to him if certain things happen again. And if that happens I would expect management to take some action. And the disputes procedure says that if there is a genuine fear of occupational health and safety problems the status quo provision doesn't apply. Now it works both ways. And if the supervisor is in fear you can't go and then and argue, "Well look, this person who has put him in fear has to be put back on afternoon shift before this matter can go any further." You understand what I am saying?

PN64

MR WOOD: Exactly.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Now having given you a bit of a lecture, Mr Wood, do you want to put something on the record from your point of view as to - - -

PN66

MR WOOD: I would like to, Commissioner, yes.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Now do you want to go on the record or you prefer to deal with this in conference?

PN68

MR WOOD: If you are happy to deal with it in conference, Commissioner, I mean, that is fine with us, I mean, yes.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Webster and Mr Gooden, are you happy to deal with it in conference or would you rather stay in a formal setting on the record?

PN70

MR GOODEN: No, conference is fine.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. We will go off the record thanks.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED