Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2016] FWC 6494
•7 OCTOBER 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 6494
[2016] FWC 6494
7 OCTOBER 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case between Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd was before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute revolved around the implementation and enforcement of existing policy, specifically concerning changes to fleet management and vehicle practices, procedures, and processes. These changes were considered major and had significant effects on the employees. The union argued that the company was required to consult with them under the agreement, while the company raised a jurisdictional objection, questioning whether the Commission had the authority to deal with the dispute under the dispute settlement procedure.
The legal issues before the court included determining whether the Commission had jurisdiction to address the dispute and whether the changes implemented by the company constituted a breach of the agreement's obligation to consult. The union contended that the changes amounted to a major alteration in the terms and conditions of employment, necessitating consultation. The company, on the other hand, argued that the changes did not fall within the scope of the agreement's dispute settlement procedure and, therefore, the Commission lacked jurisdiction.
In its reasoning, the Commission found that it did indeed have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. It held that the changes implemented by the company had a significant impact on the employees and constituted a major alteration in their terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the company was obligated to consult with the union under the agreement. The Commission rejected the jurisdictional objection raised by the company, emphasising the importance of upholding the principles of good faith bargaining and meaningful consultation.
The final orders of the Commission required the company to consult with the union regarding the changes to fleet management and vehicle practices, procedures, and processes. The company was directed to provide the union with all relevant information and documentation related to the changes and engage in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement on the implementation of the changes. Additionally, the Commission mandated that the company take steps to ensure that the changes were not implemented without proper consultation with the union.
The legal issues before the court included determining whether the Commission had jurisdiction to address the dispute and whether the changes implemented by the company constituted a breach of the agreement's obligation to consult. The union contended that the changes amounted to a major alteration in the terms and conditions of employment, necessitating consultation. The company, on the other hand, argued that the changes did not fall within the scope of the agreement's dispute settlement procedure and, therefore, the Commission lacked jurisdiction.
In its reasoning, the Commission found that it did indeed have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. It held that the changes implemented by the company had a significant impact on the employees and constituted a major alteration in their terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the company was obligated to consult with the union under the agreement. The Commission rejected the jurisdictional objection raised by the company, emphasising the importance of upholding the principles of good faith bargaining and meaningful consultation.
The final orders of the Commission required the company to consult with the union regarding the changes to fleet management and vehicle practices, procedures, and processes. The company was directed to provide the union with all relevant information and documentation related to the changes and engage in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement on the implementation of the changes. Additionally, the Commission mandated that the company take steps to ensure that the changes were not implemented without proper consultation with the union.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Collective Bargaining
-
Change in Employment Practices
-
Consultation Obligations
-
Jurisdiction
-
Dispute Resolution
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Botiki v WorkPac Mining Pty Ltd [2021] FWC 508
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, Mr Matthew Howard v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd T/A Mt Arthur Coal
[2021] FWCFB 6059
WorkPac Mining Pty Ltd v Peni Botiki, Nathan Calder, Craig Kedwell, Wayne Powell and Francisco Valdivia
[2021] FWCFB 3325
Peter Guinea v Workpac Pty Ltd
[2021] FWC 1633
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Maritime Union of Australia, The v DP World Brisbane Pty Ltd
[2013] FWC 2394
AMIEU v Golden Cockerel Pty Ltd
[2014] FWCFB 7447