Textile company taken to task by union
MELBOURNE: A Geelong textile company has been prevented from implementing shift changes that would lead to a reduction in pay for its staff after an appearance in the Melbourne Federal Court last month. The action was bought about by the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union (TCFUA) who sought an injunction stopping Huyck Wangner Australia from introducing changes to its staff rosters that would have a negative impact on current employees.
The case follows the expiry two years ago of an enterprise agreement between the TCFUA and union-affiliated employees at the textile manufacturer. In a hearing before Justice J Jessup, the court heard that despite several months of protracted negotiations, the two parties had been unable to reach agreement on terms for the new contract.
On September 4 this year the union notified the textile manufacturing plant that its members had agreed to engage in industrial action, commencing September 10, in support of their position to the proposed new agreement.
The court was told that on September 8 Huyck Wangner sent a memorandum to all production operators and maintenance personnel proposing a change of shift structure.
Under the conditions of the expired agreement the majority of staff worked 12-hour shifts over seven days, entitling them to penalty rates of double time, time and a half and shift penalties as the occasion required. Employees working 12-hour shifts work less than five days per week on average while other employees working eight-hour shifts were entitled to one rostered day off per month. Depending upon the department all employees were entitled to two or three paid meal breaks per shift. However under the proposed change, employees would be required to work a five-day working week and 12-hour shifts would be abandoned.
The union, represented by Slater & Gordon, alleged this would result in the loss of employees paid meal breaks, and a reduction in their income - at an average of $200 per week per worker - owing to the loss of penalties and paid rostered days off. It argued this was in contravention of the Workplace Relations Act that states an employer must not dismiss or disadvantage an employee because the employee is proposing to engage in protected action.
However CCI Victoria Legal, representing Huyck Wangner, contended the September 8 announcement arose from a "legitimate operational decision" made on financial grounds. While documents outlining the company's current financial position were suppressed, it is understood that - if implemented - the shift changes would save the company about $24,000 a week.
Huyck Wangner argued it had begun looking for ways to cut costs as early as August because of concerns over its financial viability. Its lawyers denied the company had suggested the proposal in direct response to the strike threat.
Justice Jessop agreed that based on the evidence heard, the TCFUA had established sufficient likelihood of success to justify the preservation of the status quo in relation to the employees working conditions. The hearing on the alleged breaches of the act, expected to take three days, has been set down for November 3.
By Tracey Porter