PR941599 AW772231 PR941599 Download Word Document AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relations Act 1996 s. 99 notification of industrial dispute Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd and Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (C2003/6707) CLERKS (VEHICLE INDUSTRY - REPAIR SERVICES AND RETAIL) AWARD 1985 Metal industry COMMISSIONER SPENCER BRISBANE, 5 DECEMBER 2003 Transfer of employees around site to meet operational requirements RECOMMENDATION [1] This matter arises from a notification pursuant to s.99 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act) by the Australian Industry Group (the AIG) on behalf of Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd (the Employer/Company) of an alleged industrial dispute with the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (the Union) at its Archerfield site. [2] The notification set out that employees had taken unprotected industrial action in the form of a stop-work meeting extending beyond the lunch break on Thursday, 4 December 2003, which resulted in the workforce leaving the site and taking unprotected strike action for the remainder of the shift. [3] The AIG stated the dispute concerns the transfer of employees to meet the operational requirements of the business. Specifically, it was submitted by the Union that the dispute related to the transfer of Mr Brook (the Employee) from the Components Section to the Material Handling Section of the workplace in order that his requirement for light duties was accommodated. The Union's concern is that when the Employee's requirement for these restricted duties was finalised, he was not returned to his prior work in the Components Section in conflict with the Company's rehabilitation process. [4] The Union concedes that the transfer has not impacted on Mr Brook's remuneration and is within his skill and ability. However, its concern is that a long-term placement in this Section in comparison with his earlier work may lead to de-skilling. [5] The Employer submits that the Employee has not been returned to his earlier duties as the current operational requirements necessitate maintaining Mr Brook in the Material Handling Section whilst the Company endeavours to recruit two employees to this Section, and that, presently, additional services are not required in the Components Section. The Employer was prepared to review the transfer in January 2004. [6] The Employer stated it was exercising its managerial prerogative, as has been done over a long history at the workplace of transferring employees within the divisions of the Company in accordance with their skill and ability to manage the business needs. RECOMMENDATION [7] As a result of the conference, the following Recommendation was made and is now provided in written form, as requested, to assist communication at the workplace: a strong Recommendation is issued that the disputes procedure be followed and that employees take no further industrial action over this matter; as agreed between the parties, the matter is to be relisted for report back in January 2004 to report on the outcome of the recruitment process for the positions in the Material Handling Section and to assess whether operational requirements have afforded an increase in numbers of employees required in the Components Section. In addition, it is to be ascertained whether it is tenable, on consideration of the application of the Rehabilitation Policy and the operational requirements, to return Mr Brook to his former duties. BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code A>