United Voice v Goodman Fielder Baking (A Division of Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd)

[2012] FWA 5682

[2012] FWA 5682

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

RECOMMENDATION

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

United Voice
v
Goodman Fielder Baking (A Division of Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd)
(C2012/4376)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS BRISBANE, 4 JULY 2012

Alleged dispute regarding consultation - closure of the factory.

[1] On 29 June 2012, United Voice filed an application to deal with a dispute under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). The employer concerned was Goodman Fielder Baking (A Division of Quality Baking Australia Pty Ltd) (“the Company”). The dispute arose under the terms of the Goodman Fielder (Baking) Enterprise Agreement 2011 (“the Agreement”).

[2] As I understand the matters, the Company has taken a decision (at least in relation to Queensland) to close its production facilities in Cairns and Rockhampton. The employees in these facilities will be offered either redeployment to an enlarged facility at Townsville, or redundancy.

[3] This organisational change will have flow on effects for the Burleigh Heads production facility. This is because production volumes at Burleigh Heads will need to increase in order to supply a greater proportion of Rockhampton and western Queensland retailers, and there will be a requirement to commence distribution (to these outlets) earlier than was previously the case.

[4] As a consequence, the Company must commence its rostered shifts some five hours earlier at Burleigh Heads than was previously the case.

[5] Clause 20 of the Agreement stipulates that the Company, when it is considering introducing major changes in production or organisation or structure must notify and consult with the relevant union and the employees affected.

[6] The Agreement also states that the Company must consult in relation to matters which go to the alteration of hours of work, and that this must be done as early as practicable after a decision has been made to consider a change.

[7] Clause 20 of the Agreement is predicated upon consultation and notification with employees and the relevant union prior to the implementation of a major change. It is clearly distinguishable from the model consultation clause in this respect.

[8] On its face, it appears neither the major change itself nor its consequential effects (being the required alteration to the hours of work of the employees at Burleigh Heads) has been subject to notification or consultation prior to the decisions having been taken.

[9] United Voice does not cavil with the commercial judgement of the Company in making the organisation and structural changes, and in all likelihood would have sought the redundancy and redeployment options the Company has introduced in Cairns and Rockhampton in any event. It does, however, seek the application of consultation requirements of the Agreement before such time as the Company enacts changes to rosters at Burleigh Heads.

[10] The Company for its part faces a commercial imperative to commence the new roster at (what I understand to be) midnight Sunday 8 July 2012.

[11] While this might be the case, the commercial imperative cannot negate the reasonable operation of the Agreement. There would be little purpose in having an Agreement if this were not the case.

[12] As a consequence, I am of the view that a reasonable period of consultation with employees and United Voice should be conducted before such time as the roster is introduced.

[13] This is not a situation in which the roster changes are of nominal or negligible significance. The recasting of the roster so that it commences five hours earlier is a significant change and may give rise to variable responses from employees depending on their familial\parental situations and other circumstances. I understand that the rosters will move back from a 5.00am or 6.00am start time to midnight or so in the early morning hours.

[14] My recommendation in this matter is that the Company should enter a period of genuine consultation with employees and United Voice that should commence as soon as possible and continue until 5.00pm 13 July 2012.

[15] No changes to the roster at Burleigh Heads should be given effect during this period.

[16] I make the recommendation knowing that the Company appears already to have embarked on discussions with employees about the new roster. This fact may assist the progress of the consultation with United Voice. But recognition of this fact does not lessen the express obligation under the Agreement to consult with both employees and the relevant union about the consequential effects of major change when they are being considered.

[17] Should there be any future changes to the hours of work or rosters at the Carina facility in Brisbane, the Company must also notify the employees and the relevant union about the changes that are being considered and embark upon a reasonable consultation process before such time as those changes are enacted.

[18] I understand that there are consultation processes underway in relation to the redundancy and redeployment processes involving employees in Rockhampton and Cairns. These are separate processes from those involving Burleigh Heads. It would be expected, however, that delegates from Rockhampton and Cairns would be able to enter into consultation processes by telephone conferencing in relation to matters affecting employees in those locations.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr S. Ong, for the Applicant

Ms L. Inturrisi, for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2012.
Brisbane.
4 July.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR525916>