Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts

You are here: 

C2004/ 1690 , Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 558 (13 February 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:(03) 9672-5608 Fax:(03) 9670-8883

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 6090

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER GRAINGER

C2004/ 1690 

BORAL AUSTRALIAN GYPSUM LTD

and

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING
AND ENERGY UNION

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re alleged ban on the performance
of overtime

MELBOURNE

3.06 PM, TUESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2004

PN1

MS L. RUSSELL: I seek leave to appear for Boral Plasterboard.

PN2

MR R. WAINWRIGHT: I appear for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and we do not oppose leave to appear.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks very much. I am happy to grant you leave, Ms Russell. Yes, Ms Russell, if you tell me about it - your application was not very illuminating.

PN4

MS RUSSELL: Yes, Commissioner. Given the time of the day, I was going to suggest that as the aim is to try and have the industrial action lifted, the company would be happy to proceed by way of conference however, Commissioner, if you would like me to outline the dispute on the record - - -

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I would like to know on the record - - -

PN6

MS RUSSELL: Certainly, Commissioner, that is fine.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - just what the story is. Thanks.

PN8

MS RUSSELL: Certainly. Commissioner, unfortunately it is a familiar story at the plant at Port Melbourne. It is the same faces and the same story. What we have down there is again we have got unprotected, unlawful industrial action. Commissioner, this action started, unfortunately in the very first week back of production in 2004. It is a ban on overtime and this is the usual form of industrial action at this site. As I am sure the Commission has come across this sort of ban before, it is obviously attractive to the employees in the union because what tends to happen is that there is maximum commercial damage on the company, but very little long term financial impact on the employees because what tends to occur is once the ban is lifted, there is then obviously a need to increase production, therefore increases in overtime again.

PN9

It appears that the reason that this ban was first instituted around 7 January was that it was directed at a particular supervisor who was seeking to apply a number of policies on site. Commissioner, those are policies that go to the requirement where personal protective equipment and other issues, such as employees not reading magazines and books while they are at their work stations. On those issues, it was made clear to the union, that in terms of issues about the application of policies and procedures, given that they are obviously site wide policies and procedures, those are matters that should be discussed with the plant manager and that is obviously always open to the union and the employees to do that.

PN10

Since that original ban was implemented on 7 January in what is called the board line area, it has then escalated into two other areas of the plant. Commissioner, it appears that the escalation occurred because the company in trying protect its business and maintain production rather than taking the other options that were available to it such as standing down employees and various other things, it used a suitably qualified person from another part of the operation who is now a team leader, as part of the manning on the board line, and as a reaction to that, then the industrial action escalated.

PN11

However, as I say, Commissioner, that was after the original ban had been put in place. Now, while I said familiar stories, that apart from the familiar story of this form of industrial action and commercial damage to the company, the second part of it that is familiar is that again the union has failed to follow the disputes procedure. I mean clearly whatever the issue is here, the union could have brought it before you and the disputes procedure which is in the enterprise agreement clearly says that while the matter is in dispute, work will effectively continue in accordance with normal custom and practice, which at this site is the working of overtime.

PN12

So again we have a situation where the disputes procedure has not been followed and from the company's point of view, apart from the impact on its business, it regards that as being very serious and an ongoing issue of concern for the company that while there will obviously always be issues at site, that is exactly what the disputes procedure is designed to do. Commissioner, in terms of the commercial damage, my instructions are that at this point it is in excess of $1 million of lost sales and that is really just essentially from the disruption to the board line area, but as I say now, the industrial action escalated initially to the mill area, and then over the weekend escalated into the compound area.

PN13

Clearly, Commissioner, what my client is after is an end to the industrial action. Whatever the issues are, we can sit down and talk about those, but we want the industrial action to cease and for the plant to be able to go back to normal operation.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Ms Russell. Yes, Mr Wainwright?

PN15

MR WAINWRIGHT: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, the CFMEU received a letter from Boral Plasterboard last week from Mr Maki-Neste alleging that we had applied a ban on overtime at the site and saying that they basically wanted our assistance with the dispute. Mr Kingham wrote back to Mr Maki-Neste telling him that this was the first he had heard of an overtime ban. Our organiser, Mr Colin Flanagan, who is here today, has been on annual leave throughout January and should have been on annual leave today but has returned a day early to assist the Commission.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: I appreciate his attendance.

PN17

MR WAINWRIGHT: So he has not visited the site over that course. So we said in our letter back to the company, well, thank you for making us aware of this allegation that we have a ban in place. That is the first we have heard of us having a ban in place but, notwithstanding that, we will do what we can to assist you to get production up and running because you are telling us that it is not up and running. And I have got to say, Commissioner, that is pretty much our attitude here again today.

PN18

As I say, Mr Flanagan is here to try and work through whatever issues the company may have and we have numerous employee representatives as well, but it just seems to me that it is not helpful for the company to allege that the CFMEU has organised a ban when it is quite clearly not the case. But we need to recognise that the situation down there perhaps needs to be worked on from both sides. So hopefully we can do that today.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. So you are happy to go into conference, Mr Wainwright?

PN20

MR WAINWRIGHT: Certainly.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks. Yes, Ms Russell.

PN22

MS RUSSELL: There is just one - it will be very brief - - -

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN24

MS RUSSELL: Just my instructions are that this matter of the ban was discussed with, as you would expect, the shop stewards at the site on a number of occasions, then obviously the company brought it to the attention of the CFMEU, so certainly the delegates on site had been well aware of this ban since it was instituted, as you would expect.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, right. Thanks, Ms Russell. Yes, I am going to adjourn into conference. I am going to begin with Boral and then I will meet separately, Mr Wainwright, with you and your people from the union. So I now adjourn.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED