Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) Sydney Branch v Hutchison Ports Australia (HPA) T/A Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd and Brisbane Container Terminals Pty Ltd

Case [2015] FWC 7004


[2015] FWC 7004
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

STATEMENT


Fair Work Act 2009

s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) - Sydney Branch
v
Hutchison Ports Australia (HPA) T/A Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd and Brisbane Container Terminals Pty Ltd
(C2015/5034)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH

SYDNEY, 12 OCTOBER 2015

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)].

[1] On 24 September 2015 I issued a Statement explaining why site meetings would not go ahead on 24 and 25 September 2015 as foreshadowed on 9 September 2015.

[2] The parties met in conciliation before me on 8 October and again today.

[3] On 8 October an in principle agreement was reached between Hutchison and the MUA as follows:

    i. To negotiate and make a new Enterprise Agreement by 16 November 2015; this date may be extended to the end of November 2015 or further by consent.

    ii. That the Federal Court proceedings known as QUD 690/2015 be discontinued by consent with each party bearing their own costs.

    iii. That Hutchison commit to an enhanced voluntary redundancy process to the whole Hutchison workforce.

[4] The elements of the enhanced voluntary redundancy process will include:

    i. The enhanced voluntary redundancy arrangement will be offered to the whole of the Hutchison workforce who are covered by the Enterprise Agreement.

    ii. Each Hutchison employee will be provided with the opportunity to give an expression of interest to Hutchison if they wish to take up the enhanced voluntary redundancy arrangement.

    iii. An expression of interest will be accepted by Hutchison except in circumstances where the skill possessed by the individual is essential to the continuing successful operation of the business. If this occurs the parties will meet to resolve the situation on the basis of a “reasonableness test” with the assistance of the Commission.

    iv. All individuals who take up the enhanced voluntary redundancy arrangement will be offered the opportunity to return as casual employees after the termination of their employment.

    v. Offers of future employment as permanent employees will be made to the individuals who return as casual employees based on a priority determined by an agreed selection criteria.

[5] The parties will meet again on 20 and 21 October in conciliation before me to define the details of the in principle agreement referred to in paragraph [3] above.

[6] Given the progress made by the parties and the delicacy of the situation I have recommended, and the parties have accepted, that no separate media commentary be engaged in and any statement made to the media be agreed between Mark Jack, Acting CEO HPA and Paddy Crumlin, National Secretary MUA.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR572806>

Details
AGLC
Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) Sydney Branch v Hutchison Ports Australia (HPA) T/A Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd and Brisbane Container Terminals Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 7004
Case
[2015] FWC 7004
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) Sydney Branch versus Hutchison Ports Australia (HPA), trading as Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd and Brisbane Container Terminals Pty Ltd, was heard before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose out of allegations that HPA had breached the enterprise agreement and the National Employment Standards (NES) by dismissing several employees without just cause. The MUA Sydney Branch claimed that the dismissals were unfair and sought reinstatement of the employees, along with associated penalties and damages.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of the enterprise agreement and the NES, as well as whether the dismissals were procedurally and substantively fair. The Commission needed to determine whether HPA's actions were in compliance with the legal framework governing workplace relations, specifically whether the dismissals met the requirements of procedural fairness, and whether there was just cause for the terminations. Additionally, the Commission had to consider the implications of the NES on the rights of the employees and whether these were respected by HPA.

The Fair Work Commission ruled that HPA's dismissals were not in accordance with the enterprise agreement and the NES. The Commission found that HPA failed to provide adequate procedural fairness to the employees, and the reasons for dismissal did not constitute just cause. The Commission further determined that the dismissals were unfair and ordered HPA to reinstate the employees, along with payment of back pay and compensation. The Commission emphasised the importance of adhering to the legal standards set out in the enterprise agreement and the NES to ensure fair and just treatment of employees in the workplace.

HPA was ordered to reinstate the dismissed employees, pay them back pay from the date of dismissal, and compensate them for any loss of benefits. The Commission also directed HPA to take specific steps to remedy the breach of the enterprise agreement and the NES, including providing training to its management staff on compliance with workplace laws.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.