PR937541 PR937541 Download Word Document AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relations Act 1996 s.99 notification of industrial dispute Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union and ACI Mould Manufacturing (C2003/4533) Glass industry COMMISSIONER BLAIR MELBOURNE, 9 SEPTEMBER 2003 Industrial action at Box Hill site DECISION Background [1] The current application before the Commission arises from a protracted industrial dispute between ACI Mould Manufacturing (the Company) on the one hand and the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (the Union) on the other. The dispute relates to the renegotiation of an enterprise bargaining agreement to replace the expired 200-2003 Agreement. [2] The evidence before the Commission reveals that negotiations for the new agreement commenced in February 2003. On 20 March 2003 the Union served a notice pursuant to s170MI of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act) initiating a bargaining period. On 3 and 8 April 2003 the Union served notices pursuant to s170MO of the Act authorising protected industrial action in pursuit of its claims on behalf of its members. [3] On 6 June 2003 the Company notified the Union and its members that it intended to lock out its employees as of 7.00am Monday 16 June 2003. The lock out continues up to and including these proceedings. Section 111AA Proceedings [4] The parties to the current dispute have continued negotiating during the period of the lock out and have reached agreement on all issues with the exception of shift rosters to be worked into the future. The parties have requested that the Commission, as currently constituted, issue a recommendation by consent pursuant to s111AA of the Act. [5] Section 111AA of the Act states: " s111AA (1) If: (a) the Commission is exercising powers of conciliation in relations to a particular matter; and (b) all the parties request the Commission to conduct a hearing and make recommendations about particular aspects of the matter on which they are unable to reach agreement (which may be all aspects of the matter); and (c) the Commission is satisfied that all the parties: (i) have made a genuine attempt to agree about those aspect of the matter; and (ii) have agreed to comply with the Commission's recommendations the Commission must conduct a hearing and make recommendations about those aspects of the matter." [6] The Commission, as currently constituted, is satisfied that the parties have genuinely tried to reach agreement on the issue of shift rosters and is further satisfied, on the undertaking of Mr M Addison on behalf of the Union and Mr R Marasco on behalf of the Company, that the parties will comply with the terms of the following recommendation. Shift Rosters [7] There are three shift rosters that have been a subject of negotiations between the parties. Those rosters are, in short: (a) the current 12 hour shift roster (b) the proposed 9 day fortnight roster (c) the proposed 19 day month roster [8] The Company contends that the 19 day month roster should be introduced while the Union, for its part, contends that the continuation of the 12 hour roster is appropriate. Neither party argues in favour of the 9 day fortnight roster. [9] Given that position, the Commission finds itself with the problem of deciding between the extant 12 hour shift roster and the proposed 19 day month roster. The Evidence [10] Mr Addison, on behalf of the Union, called evidence from Mr Talawai, Mr Mulla and Mr Darling, all of whom are employees of the Company. The evidence went to the issues of disadvantage or perceived disadvantage that would attach to the introduction of the 19 day roster. Further, they expressed a view that that introduction of the 19 day month roster would not increase the productivity or competitiveness of the ACI Box Hill business. [11] Mr Marasco, on behalf of the Company, called evidence from Mr Delaney and Mr Minniti. That evidence went to the Company's view that the 12 hour shift roster had not delivered the productivity gains that were hoped for on its introduction. They stated further that the company was no longer a preferred supplier and that it is now faced with competitive pressures from both domestic and international competition. Conclusion [12] After hearing the evidence and carefully considering the submissions of both Mr Addison and Mr Marasco, the Commission expresses its concern at two issues that the parties have identified: (a) perceived disadvantage to the employees; and (b) the competitive disadvantaged position of the Company. [13] Having considered all the material before it, the Commission recommends: 1. that to address the issues of competitiveness and to ensure the long term viability of the enterprise the 19 day month roster be implemented at ACI Box Hill plant; and 2. that the Company and the Union confer with regard to any issues of perceived disadvantage in a genuine attempt to resolve those issues. If the parties are unsuccessful in that endeavour they are to refer the matters back to the Commission pursuant to the dispute settlement procedures. BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER Appearances: Mr M Addison on behalf of the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union Mr R Marasco, of the Australian Industry Group, on behalf of ACI Mould Manufacturing Hearing details: Melbourne 2003 25, 28 July 1 August 8 September Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code B>