The Federal Court of Australia has signalled the importance of careful consideration before action by employers who have difficulty with union representatives.
In one of the first significant decisions since the High Court of Australia decision in Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE v Barclay, the Court has made clear that employers still need to justify why their action is strictly behaviour related and not related to industrial activity or union membership.
In the Barclay case, the High Court overturned a previous decision of the Federal Court which, in brief, would have made it difficult for an employer to take any legitimate disciplinary action against a union delegate.
The High Court reverted to a position closer to the previous understanding of the law; that if an employer could satisfy the court that the union membership or industrial activity was not the “substantial or operative factor” influencing a decision to take adverse action, then it may be able to establish that the adverse action was not for unlawful reasons.
In AMWU v McCain Foods , the Federal Court took a novel approach to resolving a dispute not dissimilar to circumstances in the Bendigo TAFE case. It is important to note that the decision is interlocutory at this stage and the findings of the court are preliminary until a final hearing.
McCain terminated the employment of a union delegate which it said had engaged in bullying behaviour against a manager of the company. The company relied on a report commissioned by it as part of an investigation into a complaint by the manager and a similar complaint by the employee against the manager. The allegations against the employee included that he:
All of the conduct complained of occurred at meetings which dealt with industrial matters.
Story continues on page 2. Please click below.
Comments