T4419
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, and Pasminco Metals-EZ - Risdon
Industrial dispute - failure to follow settlement procedures REASONS FOR DECISION The subject matter of this dispute was first addressed by the Commission in matter T.4359 of 1993. It concerned the reallocation of duties, amongst other things, of "Spare Hand 2" duties in the Cell Room. Having regard to the foregoing the issues now in dispute related to the implementation of the reallocated duties with a particular problem concerning "pulling of the ball". I was informed by Mr Long appearing for the Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, Tasmania Branch (FIMEE) that it was the intention of Pasminco Metals-EZ (EZ) to implement all of the reallocated duties on a particular shift. The shift crew ceased work and went to the Crib Room. When the Shift Superintendent for EZ attended the Crib Room he was requested by shift employees to put the matter in dispute and that the grievance procedure be followed. A request was also made by a union organiser that the disputed duties be held over to the next day for further discussion. This was declined by the Supervisor. Subsequently shift employees, according to Mr Long, " believing they were in a situation that they were going to be asked to perform duties which were in dispute, if they declined they would be stood aside" (transcript p.3) decided to go home. Some 2.75 hours were lost by the No. 2 shift. Later the night shift went home as well. However the FIMEE claim is for payment of 2.75 hours to employees of the No. 2 shift only. Mr Fenech for EZ advised the Commission that the reallocation of duties had been previously resolved and that No. 3 shift "had done it for two shifts and there was actually nothing that was in dispute" (transcript p.4). He also stated that the Superintendent on shift asked the employees concerned: "Well what specifically are you putting in dispute? What specific aspect or task that's reallocated is in dispute?" (transcript p.4). Mr Fenech stated that the FIMEE delegate concerned was not willing to nominate any specific issue in dispute apart from indicating that all of the reallocated "Spare Hand 2" duties were in dispute. Having heard the parties in this matter and being intimately involved with the reallocation of "Spare Hand 2" duties, I conclude that the manner in which the dispute settling mechanisms were activated by the No. 2 shift was a distortion of that procedure. It was no more than a device to frustrate the reallocation of work that had already been accepted by another shift and to that extent the actions of the No. 2 shift were at best mischievous and designed to frustrate the implementation of revised working arrangements which had earlier been the subject of Commission deliberations. That aspect and the inability of the No. 2 shift to specifically nominate the issues in dispute, apart from a general reference to all matters relating to the reallocation of work previously considered by the Commission, persuaded me that the dispute was at best trivial. The claim for payment for lost time is dismissed.
R.K. Gozzi Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: |