The Australian Workers' Union v BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd

[2015] FWC 4259

[2015] FWC 4259

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

The Australian Workers' Union
v
BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd
(C2014/5675)

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

v

BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd

(C2014/1378)

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)

v

BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd

(C2014/1407)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN WOLLONGONG, 25 JUNE 2015

Application to deal with a dispute – major workplace change – consultation process.

[1] This decision is in relation to a proposal by BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (BlueScope) to outsource the operations of its Raw Material Handling Department(RMH) and the shift maintenance of Ore Preparation to Transfield Services (Transfield). The Mechanical Maintenance at the Bulk Berth Department is also proposed to be outsourced to Transfield.

[2] The Australian Workers Union, Port Kembla Branch, (AWU), the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, (AMWU), and the Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union, (CEPU) (the Unions) are opposed to the proposed outsourcing.

[3] The Unions have notified a dispute under the term of the BlueScope Steel Port Kembla Steelworks Agreement 2012 (the Agreement).

[4] The Unions were represented by Mr Nielson from Maurice Blackburn and Mr Howell of Counsel. Bluescope was represented by Mr Brotherson from Hall and Wilcox Lawyers and Mr Darams of Counsel.

[5] The Unions provided witness statements from: Mr Colin Langlands, AWU delegate; Mr Manny Da Roche, AWU delegate: and Mr La Bramble, CEPU Delegate.

[6] Bluescope provided witness statements from: Mr Richard Lorenc, Ore Preparation Manager; Mr Michael Weir, Operations Engineer, Ore Preparation Department; Mr Dereck Sheppard, Ore Preparation, Asset Development and Maintenance Manager; and Mr Peter Lozenkovski, Ore Preparation Shift Team Leader.

[7] An inspection of the plant occurred on 7 November 2014. Exhibit B4 identifies the work areas that were inspected.

[8] On 2 March 2015, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, [2015] FWCFB 1798, provided guidance to the decision making powers of the Commission in relation to the Agreement and the Fair Work Act.

[9] Although the substantive hearings in relation to this matter concluded in February this year, the parties were aware of this Full Bench appeal and the possible effect of that decision on this case. A hearing was held on 24 April 2015 to allow the parties to make further submissions regarding the effect, if any, of the Full Bench decision, in relation to this application.

Background

[10] BlueScope have automated the number 1 and number 2 Stacker Reclaimers at RMH. This will lead to a significant reduction in the manning level of Operators in the department.

[11] BlueScope have also proposed to remove the duties of its Operators at the Road and Rail Dumping Station (RRDS), by having employees of Pacific National and South Coast Equipment perform the full range of tasks and functions that they undertake throughout other sections of the Steelworks.

[12] BlueScope have proposed to outsource the remaining operator and trades functions to Transfield. BlueScope believe that, over time, this decision will result in cost savings of approximately $1,000,000 ($1 million) per year.

The Agreement

[13] The parties are bound by the BlueScope Steel Port Kembla Steelworks Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The determination of this dispute revolves around the interpretation of the following clauses:

“35.2.1 Principles concerning the management of change

The parties agree to the following key principles concerning the management of change:

a) The parties recognise and accept that change is an inevitable and increasingly necessary part of the steel industry.

b) Change must be ongoing to ensure that the Company remain viable and employee expectation concerning security of employment can be satisfied.

c) In considering the desirability and business case for any proposed change the tests to be applied are requirements for the change to be:

• safe;
• efficient;
• legal; and
• fair.

d) The parties commit to consult and abide by the dispute settling procedures provided in this Agreement in the event that proposed changes are not agreed. In support of this commitment there will be both detailed communication and strong reinforcement by the Company and Unions in respect of these procedures. Subject to any disagreement being dealt with in accordance with agreed procedures, and in the case of significant change 35.2.3, the change will be able to be implemented.

e) All parties share an intent that there be “zero industrial action” and to that end will actively ensure that employees, delegates and officials will, on each and every occasion where a dispute arises and is not resolved, follow the applicable dispute settling procedure and not take industrial action.

35.2.2 Processes for introduction of Change

a) Where changes are “significant in nature”, as defined in this subclause, they shall be the subject of the processes set out in 35.2.3.

b) Changes which are not “significant in nature” shall be introduced in accordance with the principles set out in subclause 35.2.1 and the provisions of the Agreement. Disputes in relation to such changes shall be dealt with in accordance with Clause 35.1 Procedure for Resolving Claims, Issues and Disputes.

c) A change is “significant in nature” for the purposes of this clause if the change will have substantial effects on:

i. the composition, operation or size of the workforce in a section or department of the operations of the company;
ii. the skills required of employees;
iii. the opportunities for promotions of employees;
iv. the security of employment of employees;
v. the hours of work of employees;
vi. the location of work of employees;
vii. shift pattern changes; and
viii. outsourcing of work (meaning the engagement on a permanent basis of another organisation to perform work which has previously been performed by employees of the Company. In this respect outsourcing differs from the use of contractors to meet intermittent work load requirements or to provide specialist skills on a short term or needs basis).

d) Where a change is otherwise provided for in this Agreement it will not be regarded as significant in nature for the purposes of this clause.

35.2.3 Processes for introducing change which is significant in nature and for resolving associated issues and disputes

a) The provisions of this sub-clause set out the terms and order of the procedure which shall govern the introduction and management of change which is significant in nature.

b) A change will be determined to be significant where it meets the definition as set out in clause 35.2.2(c).

c) Consultation will commence in relation to workplace change as defined when:

i. the Company has developed an idea regarding a workplace change that, if implemented, would result in a change which is significant in nature, and
ii. the idea has been developed sufficiently as to justify the time and effort required to allocate resources and to develop a working proposal, and
iii. a “Task Brief” has been prepared in at least broad terms that includes the:

• objectives of the change;
• issues that may arise if the change was progressed to implementation;
• criteria for appraisal of the idea;
• impact the idea may have on employees, customers and the business; and
• milestones in the review process.

d) Consultation will commence with a notification in writing to employees and their unions (letter 1) as to the broad objectives of the change and the possible effect the change is likely to have on employees.

e) Consultation is the process through which employees contribute to problem-solving and decision making. It provides for employee and union input before Company management finally decides on action affecting its employees.

f) Employees and their unions will be provided with the opportunity to comment and input into the proposed change. This will not limit any party from proposing alternative ideas that may result in the objectives of the business being achieved.

g) The consultation process must be fair, comprehensive and genuine.

h) Following consideration of all aspects of the change, including consultation with employees, the Company will advise employees and the relevant unions in writing (letter 2) as to whether or not the Company will proceed with the introduction of the change. The advice will include:

i. confirmation on the introduction of the change (as finally determined) and the nature of the change;
ii. the date of the introduction of the change;
iii. the impact the change will have on employees; and
iv. what steps are to be put in place to manage the impact that the changes will have on employees.

i) A decision by employees or the unions not to participate in such discussions beings to an end the consultation process.

j) Where agreement is reached as to a change, the change may be implemented immediately and the parties are to promptly record the terms of the agreement in writing.

k) Where there is disagreement as to the change to be implemented, a party to the consultation process must give written notice to the other parties that it disputes the implementation of the change and must follow the procedure for Resolving Disputes as per clause 35.1.7. Where a matter is referred to FWC as part of the disputes procedure, implementation of the change will be the subject of the outcome of such proceedings, during which time the status quo will remain.

l) For workplace change, (including the number or composition of employees engaged on any task), the consultation process may provide for the change to be introduced on a trial basis by agreement. There should be discussion between the parties as to how the trial arrangements should be implemented. An appropriate monitoring system will be established to ensure that the proposed changes are safe, efficient, legal and fair test.

m) Definition:

For purposes of clause 35.2, the term Workplace change does not include:
Matters that involve the requirement for employees to work in accordance with the reasonable direction of te Company; normal day to day operations and work within the employee’s recognised skills, competence, training and safe working practices.

Company decisions regarding significant capital investment, business growth etc. In these circumstance the Company is to provide the information in writing to employees and their unions as referred to in points (i) to (iv) of clause 35.2.3(h).

35.2.4 Nature of consultation

Consultation involves:

a) All parties being prepared to put forward considered views in respect of desired improvements and alternatives as to how such improvements could be achieved;

b) An opportunity being given to all affected parties to fully understand the nature and impact of those views before any final decision on implementation of changes is made by the Company;

c) Fair consideration being given to the issues and concerns raised by the parties before any final decision on implementation of change is made.”

[14] There have been lengthy discussions between the parties over many months. BlueScope has explained its proposal in detail, including the proposed cost savings. BlueScope has undertaken a thorough assessment of the proposal and costings from the Unions.

Contentions

[15] The Unions submitted that BlueScope had not complied with the consultation provisions of the Agreement, i.e. that the consultation that occurred was not fair, comprehensive and genuine.

[16] Further, the Unions submitted that to allow the proposed changes would be inconsistent with a specific provision of the Agreement and that, based on the Full Bench decision, the FWC would exceed its jurisdiction if it allowed the implementation of the outsourcing proposal.

[17] The Unions also submitted that the outsourcing proposed does not satisfy the “tests” identified in the Agreement that the proposed change needs to be safe, efficient, legal and fair.

[18] BlueScope submitted that the Full Bench decision is not relevant to this dispute on the basis that there is no specific provision in relation to the content of the matter. Further, BlueScope submitted that the Agreement specifically provides for the possibility of work being outsourced (clause 35.2) and that they have fully complied with the consultation processes and procedures of the Agreement (Clause 35.2.3). BlueScope claim that they have investigated and considered the proposal submitted by the Unions, but that they prefer their proposal to outsource.

[19] BlueScope submitted that the outsourcing proposal satisfies the safe, efficient, legal and fair test of the Agreement.

[20] The role of the FWC, applying the decision of the Full Bench in matter [2015] FWCFB 1798, is to ensure that the provisions of the Agreement have been fully complied with by the parties. The FWC then needs to determine whether the proposed change is safe, efficient, legal and fair.

[21] A requirement for BlueScope to consult does not mean that there has to be an agreement or consensus between the parties.

[22] The parties accept that the proposed outsourcing is a change which is “significant in nature” in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. Therefore clause 35.2.3 is enlivened. For the sake of convenience, I repeat the relevant sections of clause 35.2.3 and 35.2.4.

35.2.3 Processes for introducing change which is significant in nature and for resolving associated issues and disputes

e) Consultation is the process through which employees contribute to problem-solving and decision making. It provides for employee and union input before Company management finally decides on action affecting its employees.

f) Employees and their union will be provided with the opportunity to comment and input into the proposed change. This will not limit any party from proposing alternative ideas that may result in the objectives of the business being achieved.

g) The consultation process must be fair, comprehensive and genuine.

35.2.4 Nature of Consultation

Consultation involves

a) All parties being prepared to put forward considered views in respect of desired improvements and alternatives as to how such improvements could be achieved;
b) An opportunity being given to all affected parties to fully understand the nature and impact of those views before any final decision on implementation of changes is made by the company;
c) Fair consideration being given to the issues and concerns raised by the parties before any final decision on implementation of change is made.

[23] I was very impressed by the honest and forthright evidence of Mr Lorenc. His evidence was both compelling and complete.

[24] Likewise, the evidence of Mr Sheppard was also very informative. Of particular note, is that Mr Sheppard identified a possible alternative to either the BlueScope outsourcing option or the Union option. This option was not the subject of any discussion between the parties apart from a brief discussion with the AMWU and CEPU.

[25] In response to a question from me, Mr Sheppard indicated that there was an option that could have maintained full time employment, albeit at a significantly reduced level.

“..So there was definitely an option that the employees could have come back that would have given the company, taken some serious consideration by the company.” 1

[26] Mr Shephard stated that he did not believe that the difficult and perplexing issue of “trade operator” needed to be resolved or implemented in order to satisfy the requirements of BlueScope.

“No. So I’ve never spoken or I believe that it’s necessary to have an operator maintainer function. I believe there was an avenue that was close enough that – to meet, you know get a long way from the gap between the current employee proposal and the outsourced solution.” 2

“So an option may have been to have an operator, an electrician and a tradesperson.” 3

[27] Mr Lorenc confirmed that BlueScope did not advise employees of a possible third option.

“Did you ever foreshadow with the employees that there might be an option of operating at reduced operator numbers? --- So during the consultation process, the information that we gave, view is that was communicated through that process. But prior to letter 1, no, we didn’t do that, if that’s what your question is.”  4 (my emphasis)

[28] However, I consider that the 1 x 1 x 1 option of Mr Sheppard was worthy of detailed discussion and investigation. I have no doubt that the unions would have rejected the proposal based on the responses by the Maintenance Unions when it was raised with them, and taking into account Mr Langland’s evidence and his stringent and honourable attempts to maximise the number of available jobs for his members. However, under the requirement to negotiate in a genuine manner (clause 35.2.3(g)) BlueScope was obligated to explore the possibility. I have taken this into account.

[29] Mr Sheppard was unable to advise the Commission how Transfield were going to perform the work. The contract has not been finalised. 5 Significantly, Transfield has not advised BlueScope if they even intend to have employees at RMH on the back shifts. The contract is based on timeframes, not location of employees.6

[30] Clause 35.2.4 raises its own consideration. BlueScope was not able to explain to the unions how Transfield was going to be able to undertake the required work for the price that it had quoted. The Unions believe that Transfield could not meet their quote. I am not satisfied that BlueScope can satisfy its obligations under clause 35.2.4 without knowing the skills, qualifications and availability of the Transfield employees who would have to undertake these functions. I have taken this into account.

[31] There was much discussion in relation to the scope of works that was provided to Transfield. It was accepted by BlueScope that one of the Transfield employees on the backshift will have to be electrically qualified and licensed, yet no such explicit requirement exists in the scope of the works. Whilst this issue would have obvious adverse implications in relation to any assessment of the proposal being safe, efficient, legal or fair, the lack of information or evidence from Transfield raises the issue of compliance with clause 35.2.4(c). I have taken this into account.

[32] I am not persuaded that the consultation process can be concluded when BlueScope has to rely on assumptions in relation to the proposed contractor’s operation.

[33] It is obvious to me that one of the personnel on the backshifts will have to work as a trade/operator and be electrically qualified. I have taken the opportunity to review the Transfield Enterprise Agreement (2012 – 2015). Mr Lorenc believes that Transfield would have to look at introducing a Trade/Operator to cover work on the back shift. I have taken the opportunity to inform myself regarding the Transfield Enterprise Agreement.

[34] The electrical classification description says:

EW6 – 115%

EW 6 applies to skills acquired and utilized on the job.

i. Nine appropriate modules in addition to the training requirements of EW3; or

ii. Nine appropriate modules towards an Advanced Certificate; or

iii. Nine appropriate modules towards an Associate Diploma; or

iv. Any training which a registered provider (e.g. TAFE) or by State Training Authority has been recognised as equivalent to an accredited course which the appropriate industry training board recognises for this level. This can include advanced standing through recognition of prior learning and/or overseas qualifications; or

v. Will have skills equivalent to the above gained through recognition of prior learning and/or overseas qualifications; or

vi. Will have skills equivalent to the above gained through work experience subject to competence testing to the prescribed standards.

The following indicative tasks apply to a Tradesperson at Level EW6:

• Exercise the skills attained through completion of the training/work experience prescribed for this classification;

• Exercise discretion within their level of training;

• Is able to provide trade guidance and assistance as part of a work team;

• Provides training in conjunction with supervisors and trainers;

• Understands and implements quality control techniques;

• Works under limited supervision either individually or in a team environment;

• Can schedule and coordinate maintenance work for teams including down day programme development and execution for a maintenance task team.

• Exercise high Precision Trade Skills using various materials and/or specialised techniques;

• Works on machinery or equipment which utilise complex electrical/electronic circuitry and controls;

• Works on instruments which make up complex control system which utilises some combination of electrical/electronic power principles;

• Exercise intermediate CAD/CAM skills in the performance of routine modification to programs;

• Working on complex or intricate interconnected electrical circuits at a level above MW5;

• Working on complex radio/communication equipment.

EW7 – 120%

EW 7 applies to skills acquired and utilized on the job.

i. An Associate Diploma in a suitable discipline; or

ii. An Advanced Certificate in a suitable discipline; or

iii. Dual trade qualifications i.e. electrical and instrumentation; or

iv. Any training which a registered provider (e.g. TAFE) or by State Training Authority has been recognised as equivalent to an accredited course which the appropriate industry training board recognises for this level. This can include advanced standing through recognition of prior learning and/or overseas qualifications; or will have skills equivalent to the above gained through work experience subject to competence testing to the prescribed standards.

The following indicative tasks apply to a Tradesperson at Level EW7:

• Exercise the skills attained through completion of the training/work experience prescribed for this classification;

• Operates autonomously within their level of training;

• Is able to provide specialist trade guidance and assistance as part of a work team;

• Provides specialist training in conjunction with supervisors and trainers;

• Understands, produces and implements quality control techniques and procedures;

• Is able to supervise and mentor employees, both individually and as part of a team environment;

• Schedules and coordinate complex maintenance and project work for teams.

• Exercise high Precision Trade Skills using various materials and/or specialised techniques;

• Works on machinery or equipment which utilise complex electrical/electronic/instrumentation circuitry and controls;

• Works on instruments which make up complex control systems;

• Exercise advanced CAD/CAM skills in the performance of routine modification to programs;

• Working on complex or intricate interconnected electrical circuits at a level above MW6;

• Working on fault finding for highly complex electrical/electronic and instrumentation equipment.

[35] I have difficulty in accepting the proposition that the two Transfield Operators on the back shift, (if they actually exist) one of which will be electrically qualified and hold electrical license, the other one may need to be mechanically qualified, will be required to perform the operating and trades tasks at RMH and the maintenance calls to the sinter plant and mechanical calls to the Bulk Berth Department.

“It’s in expectation that they will have some trade qualifications? (sic) ---Yes.

“Are those operators just going to be solely working in the raw materials department? ---No, they will be expected to also take maintenance calls to the sinter plant and mechanical calls to shipping, and also some minor calls, if necessary, to the (indistinct) that’s in the scope.” 7

“There’s some small detail that still needs to be worked out.”  8

“So they haven’t fully decided on the skill mix…”  9

[36] Based on the evidence of Mr Bramble, the capacity of any employee to be able to perform at that level is impossible. I have taken this into account.

[37] As I mentioned earlier, I cannot find any mention or capacity for trade/ operator in the Transfield classification structure. I do not accept Mr Lorenc’s view that Transfield are confident “they can cross that bridge”. 10 The only way for Transfield to vary their Agreement is with the consent of the parties. I note that clause 3.2 of the Transfield Agreement identifies the parties to the Agreement.

“3.2 The Parties to this Enterprise Agreement are:

• Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited (ABN 11 093 114 553)

• Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU);

• Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU); and

• Australian Workers’ Union (AWU)”

[38] It is unlikely that the Union would oppose the trade/operator model at BlueScope then support it at Transfield

Determination

[39] In determining this matter, I have taken into account all of the submissions, evidence and documents that have been tendered during these proceedings. I acknowledge that the change in appearances during the proceedings produced challenges and I appreciate the goodwill and cooperation that was displayed by the legal representatives.

[40] I was impressed by the alternative proposition that was suggested by the Unions. Mr Langlands was able to identify a number of areas of inefficiency and unnecessary expenditure. BlueScope then amended their costings based on this analysis. The concept of “outsourcing” work from external providers is a relevant consideration in these types of cases. If employees maintain the skills to perform the work that has previously been outsourced, then the cost implications of such a proposition must be taken into account in the company’s determination.

[41] I accept that BlueScope considered the alternate proposal put forward by the Unions and explained why they did not accept it and why it would not work.

[42] While I had some misgivings with the selective way that BlueScope undertook its financial analysis, I accept that the costings provide a financial scenario which supports the proposed outsourcing model over the Unions proposal.

[43] Fair, comprehensive and genuine consultation, which are the requirements of Clause 35.2.3(g) of the Agreement, means that the parties must be open, honest and frank with each other, whilst taking into account some material that might be commercial in confidence. BlueScope knew the Unions and employees were trying to maintain direct, full time employment at BlueScope. Employees such as Mr Langlands have a wealth of experience at RMH. They do not want to move departments. They do not want redundancy. They are too young to retire. They want to keep their job.

[44] BlueScope had an obligation to advise them of other possible alternatives, either the model mentioned by Mr Lorenc, i.e. two operators, one electrician and one fitter, or the model of Mr Sheppard, which was one operator, one electrician and one fitter.

[45] They failed to mention either alternative. Therefore I am not persuaded that Bluescope has followed the consultation provisions of the Agreement, in particular, clause 35.2.3(f) and 35.2.4(a). I find that the proposal to outsource therefore fails on the threshold issue of failing compliance with a specific provision of the Agreement.

[46] The FWC does not sit in proceedings such as these as some de facto Managing Director or Chairman of the Board. Mr Brotherson suggested that:

“The Commission’s primary role is to say whether the company can or not proceed with what it has decided to do. You would use that alternative proposal as part of the assessment and you might say, “The company can’t proceed because I think it should give further consideration to some other aspects.”  11

[47] I agree.

[48] If I am wrong in relation to the threshold question on consultation then I find that the outsourcing proposal does not pass the safe, efficient, legal and fair test of clause 35.2.1(c).

[49] The way that Transfield intends to operate and maintain the affected areas is not before the Commission. Even BlueScope does not know how Transfield will conduct its operation. Whilst BlueScope has correctly identified the need for electrically qualified and licensed personnel to perform maintenance functions, no such requirement exists in the scope of works. Due to the lack of evidence before the Commission and lack of understanding by the parties as to how Transfield intends to operate the plant, I am not able to satisfy myself that the proposal is safe. Therefore, I find that the outsourcing proposal does not satisfy the safety test requirement of the Agreement.

[50] The outsourcing model will undoubtedly save BlueScope a significant amount of money over the long term, even though significant issues such as manning levels are yet to be finalised. I do not accept the methodology of not accounting for all costs associated with the proposal but find that the efficiency test against the status quo has been satisfied. Such an assessment may not have been forthcoming if BlueScope had costed Mr Shephard’s alternative proposal.

[51] I find that the proposal cannot proceed because of the failure of BlueScope to consult fully. If BlueScope had an alternative that would have satisfied its ambition to cut costs then they were obligated to discuss this option with the Unions and their employees.

[52] I agree with Mr Lorenc that BlueScope has tried to be fair throughout this process. There was certainly any number of discussions between the parties and BlueScope clearly undertook to examine the alternatives put forward by the employees.

[53] The concept of outsourcing always carries with it a notion of unfairness because inevitably, BlueScope employees will lose their job. However, apart from the lack of consultation, BlueScope has acted fairly throughout this process.

Conclusion

[54] The stacker automation has been implemented. I assume that the implementation continues to be successful.

[55] I can see no impediment to the introduction of the proposed changes to the operation of the RRDS. Such a change is logical, efficient and productive. The role of the BlueScope Operator at the RRDS is unnecessary and unproductive. It is ludicrous to have the employees of the contractor simply stand around and watch the operator perform a function that they perform elsewhere in the Steelworks.

[56] I cannot support the proposed outsourcing to Transfield based on the information that is currently before the Commission.

[57] BlueScope should have put Mr Sheppard’s proposal on the table for consultation. Without knowing the costings of this option, based on my knowledge and experience, the proposal would be likely to provide significant cost savings to BlueScope, maintain the operational and legal integrity of the plant and satisfy the requisite Agreement tests of safe, efficient, legal and fair. The only failure of consultation is that the Sheppard proposal has not been the subject of consultation in accordance with Clause 35.2.3 of the Agreement.

[58] For the reasons identified above, I find that BlueScope has not complied with the consultation provisions of the Agreement. No proposal to outsource work can be complete without consultation in relation to the size, skill and makeup of the proposed alternate workforce.

[59] Whilst I have found that BlueScope’s proposal to outsource the operations of RMH and the maintenance at Ore Preparation to be in breach of the Agreement, the deficiency does not mean that the process has to go back to square one.

[60] BlueScope should immediately cost the option of Mr Sheppard, i.e. one operator, one electrician and one mechanical fitter. Once costed, BlueScope must consult with the Unions in relation to the proposal.

[61] If, after consideration and consultation, BlueScope decides that the Sheppard proposal is inferior to its proposal of outsourcing to Transfield, then BlueScope short finalise their contract negotiations with Transfield in order to satisfy itself and the Commission that the proposal is safe, efficient, legal and fair. The parties should consider whether a conference with the Commission following this consideration and consultation might be of assistance.

[62] I so Order.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

A Howell, Counsel for the AWU, CEPU and AMWU.

J Darams, Counsel for BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd.

Hearing details:

2014.

Wollongong:

19, 20 and 21 November.

2015.

Sydney

29 January

Wollongong:

2 February

24 April.

 1   PN2769.

 2   PN2795.

 3   PN2796.

 4   PN1877.

 5   PN3049.

 6   PN2603.

 7   PN1942 to PN 1943.

 8   PN2325.

 9   PN2327.

 10   PN2638

 11   PN1413.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR568700>