Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Bechtel Australia Pty Ltd
[2012] FWA 6200
•20 JULY 2012
[2012] FWA 6200 |
|
RECOMMENDATION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Bechtel Australia Pty Ltd
(C2012/814)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 20 JULY 2012 |
Alleged failure to provide suitable accommodation, meals and transport as required under clauses of the agreement.
[1] On 17 July 2012, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“CFMEU”) lodged an application to deal with a dispute under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). The employer was Bechtel Australia Pty Ltd (“the Company”). The dispute was said to have arisen under clauses 10.1, 10.2, and 10.4 of the Bechtel Caval Ridge Project Union Greenfields Agreement (“the Agreement”). These clauses relate to the provision of camp accommodation and food, and Company- provided transportation at the end of a work cycle.
[2] The dispute application was the subject of a conference on 20 July 2012. There were two particular issues in dispute (though a further incidental issue arose, about which I will make some comment below).
[3] The first of these concerned complaints about camp food standards.
[4] The second issue concerned the manner in which the Company would respond to any delays in an employee accessing travel at the end of a swing or roster.
[5] I make the following recommendations in respect of each of the two issues.
FOOD COMPLAINTS
[6] There appears to have been a concern that criticism of the standard of meals or food handling procedures cannot be conducted with sufficient confidentiality and\or is ineffective (in that it is not followed up).
[7] It seems that the camp provides for a comments or complaints book as well as a method of filing feedback forms about food or meal issues. The latter appears to be a confidential process which can be completed by employees without identifying themselves, if that is their wish. The comments or complaints book, however, may need to be physically re-positioned so that any employee contributing there-to may do so confidentially, or at least where they might not be readily seen by employees of the camp provider.
[8] The Company has indicated a number of staff, including a supervisor and two co-ordinators, are positioned to respond to any complaints about issues, including meal standards and food hygiene concerns. They appear to have done so in the past. However, the Company's response to any complaints may not be readily observable as it has not publicised its actions.
[9] For this reason, I recommend that the Company should provide timely feedback in response to genuine complaints by way of posting written responses on a dedicated section of the camp notice board.
[10] In this manner, employees will be able to observe responses to expressions of any genuine concerns they might have about meal and food hygiene issues.
[11] This recommendation, or the relevant text there-off, might be placed on the camp notice board to advise employees of the new arrangements.
TRANSPORTATION
[12] The CFMEU expressed concern that its members may be subject to delays in accessing R&R because of transportation difficulties, particularly in accessing flights to their home base, or usual place of residence. It appears that from time to time there are flight delays in leaving the region at the prescribed time on the last day of the work cycle. These appear to arise from such issues as the cloud ceiling at the airport and flight restrictions - matters outside the control of the Company.
[13] It appears to me on what the parties put to me that there may have only been one demonstrated instance in which employees have not been able to access travel on the last day of their work cycle. On that occasion, the Company claims it came to a reasonable means of offsetting the inconveniences to which the employees were subject, and did so after consultation with officials of the relevant employee organisation.
[14] The approach I understand the Company to have adopted, and which I would in any event recommend, is that it should respond to any incidents which compromise an employee’s R&R entitlement on a reasonable basis, and do as it did in the prior example, which was to discuss the matter (and the proposed response) with the officials of the relevant employee organisation.
[15] There does not appear to me, at this stage, to be any evidence of a systematic problem that requires any further prescription than this. Of course, any such further concerns can be subject to the disputes clause in the future on the basis, for example, that there has not been compliance with clause 10.4(d) of the Agreement, which requires the Company to ensure that travel for R&R commences on the last day of the employee’s work cycle.
INCIDENTAL ISSUE
[16] It became evident over the course of the discussions regarding the above matters that a further issue was of concern to the CFMEU. That issue concerned the powers of the camp manager - arising from its own duty of care and contractual arrangements presumably - to withdraw from any employee an entitlement to accommodation, which can affect the employee’s employability (for the Company's purposes).
[17] Clearly, this is an issue of some importance and it can give rise to natural justice concerns. Similar issues can arise in labour hire arrangements. The current concern appears to have been related to alleged conduct by an employee last weekend which resulted in the withdrawal of accommodation privileges. A period of industrial disruption occurred thereafter.
[18] It is my understanding that once this dispute application was lodged, steps were taken to initiate formal discussions between the Company and officials of the CFMEU about this very matter. There appears to be a meeting for this very purpose scheduled for 31 July 2012.
[19] This is a sensible and reasonable approach to resolving issues of this kind and conforms with the dispute resolution procedure in the Agreement. Such an approach to resolving disputes is to be encouraged (if only because they are mandated by the Agreement itself in any event).
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr T. O’Brien for the Applicant
Mr M. Coonan, solicitor for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2012
20 July.
Brisbane.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR526600>
0
0
0