The Australian Workers' Union v Cement Australia (Queensland) Pty Limited

[2015] FWC 2825

[2015] FWC 2825

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Cement Australia (Queensland) Pty Limited
(C2015/689)

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 24 APRIL 2015

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

[1] This recommendation arises from a dispute notification under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) lodged by The Australian Workers’ Union (“the AWU”) in relation to the effect of changes in automation introduced into the operations of Cement Australia’s East End Mine and the Gladstone Fisherman’s Landing operations.

[2] In summary, it appears that Cement Australia has introduced automated carriage loading at its East End Mine, which is the source of its limestone for its production facility at Fisherman’s Landing, in Gladstone. The mine and the production facility are connected by a rail loop.

[3] Cement Australia is seeking to direct its employees who perform the role of plant operators at the Fishman’s Landing facility to monitor the carriage loadings at the East End Mine. It is asking the operators to perform duties in relation to monitoring the carriage loading at the East End Mine in addition to performing their ordinary roles (which largely involve monitoring and responding to alarms relating to the lime kiln and cement manufacturing processes).

[4] The plant operators have not attended meetings arranged by the company to explain the changes it is making to the way in which work is performed at the business. Opportunities were provided by the company between 15 December 2014 and 22 January 2015 for the purposes of facilitating discussions between plant operators and team leaders about the changes the company wish to implement.

[5] The reason the plant operators had not attended the information sessions is because they reject the position of the company that it does not believe that the changes as having any implications in terms of reclassification of the plant operators, or that the volume of work consequent of the change is significant and may lead to fatigue and safety issues.

[6] As it has been explained to me, the changes require the plant operators to monitor the loading of the first carriage only at the East End Mine, which takes a few minutes. The plant operators would then be required to respond to any alarms that may arise over the completion of the automated carriage loading process at the mine. If the alarms are not attended to or not actioned in some way the carriage loading process is automatically shut down.

[7] There are only a small number of loading operations each day (that is, 8 trains each two days) and each loading operation takes one hour, it appears.

[8] The company is also embarking on other process reforms to reduce the demands on the plant operator’s attention. One such development is the rationalisation of alarms and other indicators to which they need to respond.

[9] In my view, common sense would demand that the plant operators should meet with their team leaders to receive a full briefing on the definite decision that the company has made to implement a change in the manner in which it conducts its business. This will provide the plant operators with an opportunity to have informed discussions (that might be constructive in nature and not merely of a negative or suspicious kind) about the impact of the operational change.

[10] That said, changes of this kind can create pressures on classification structures. If the plant operators are of the view that they are being required to perform duties beyond their classification they should agitate that express matter through the disputes procedure and seek a resolution of that matter by a formal process of investigation and determination.

[11] Having said that, I need to be candid and indicate that on the information that is currently before me it does not appear to me that there would be a reasonable likelihood that there would be any classification pressures arising from the demand to monitor the initial carriage loading process for the very short periods required of the plant operators in the changed business process. Moreover, the requirement to monitor a single carriage for a few minutes and then to attend to an audible alarm does not suggest to me any classification creep of any reasonable or substantive kind.

[12] There is a further argument that the plant operators are being subject to a substantive increase in their workload and that this will result in fatigue and safety risks.

[13] Again, given the full context of the changes sought by the employer it is difficult to see at first instance that there might be further stressors in the additional demands being made of the plant operators (given the very low frequency of the train movements and the limited additional demands on the plant operator’s attention over the loading process).

[14] But I am not close to the daily work of the plant operators and it is difficult for me to comment reasonably on their work volume, or its peaks and troughs, in a given day in the context of their shifts.

[15] Given this, I would suggest that upon the completion of the briefings provided by the company’s various team leaders, the plant operators should participate in an operational trial of the arrangements over a two month period in order to identify any safety or fatigue risks. It is sometimes the case that the convergence of demands in any particular instance on a plant operator might theoretically present a risk of one kind or another. Whether such an eventuality might arise could be reasonably revealed in an operational trial of some extended duration, and solutions may be identified.

[16] Having said that, I do note that it seems that the production system goes into automatic shutdown where there is a non-response to a particular shutdown alarm or alert by a plant operator.

Summary

[17] I recommend as follows:

• The plant operators (and their delegates) are encouraged to meet with the company’s various team leaders into avail themselves of a full briefing on the nature and consequences of the changes to the business processes that the company seeks to introduce;



• If there is a reasonable belief that the tasks required of the plant operators consequent of the changed business process generally give rise to “classification creep”, an application should be made to formally investigate and determine this issue; and



• The changes should be subject to a two month trial which will yield information to the company and the employees as to the extent of the workload changes and whether or not these reasonably give rise to any fatigue or safety risks that cannot be managed.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE413019  PR563416>