Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T4639 T4750 T4751 T4752 T4753 T4754 T4755 T4756 T4757 T4758, T4759, T4760 T4761 T4762 T4763 - 24 December

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.29 application for hearing of an industrial dispute

The AWU-FIME Amalgamated Union,
Tasmania Branch

(T.4639 of 1993)
(T.4750 of 1993)
(T.4751 of 1993)
(T.4752 of 1993)
(T.4753 of 1993)
(T.4754 of 1993)
(T.4755 of 1993)
(T.4756 of 1993)
(T.4757 of 1993)
(T.4758 of 1993)
(T.4759 of 1993)
(T.4760 of 1993)
(T.4761 of 1993)
(T.4762 of 1993)
(T.4763 of 1993)

and

Pasminco Metals-EZ

 

COMMISSIONER R.K. GOZZI

HOBART, 24 December 1993

Industrial dispute - unfair dismissals

ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 31(1) OF THE ACT

The background to this dispute was outlined in my Statement and Recommendation dated 23 December 1993. A copy is attached.

Essentially the Commission has concluded that certain employees were treated unfairly and harshly by Pasminco Metals-EZ (PMEZ) when it retrenched them on 25 October 1993. The employees in question are identified as follows:

    R. Russell
    G. Gower
    N. Bourke
    M. Williams
    C. Morely
    A. Gravina
    D. Hart
    M. Russell

The Commission endeavoured to settle this dispute by conciliation and to that extent a number of unfair dismissal claims were able to be resolved. However this was not possible for the abovenamed employees. It should also be noted that the Commission, at the request of PMEZ and The AWU-FIME Amalgamated Union, Tasmania Branch (the Union) has been involved in a number of informal and formal conferences where the issues in question were discussed. At the heart of the dispute is the Memorandum of Understanding between PMEZ and the Union which makes it clear that short-term temporary employees would be engaged for a specified period only. Exhibits G5, F1 and F2 are relevant to this issue. It is the Commission's decision, having regard to all of the factors in this dispute and as set out in the attached Statement and Recommendation, that PMEZ should have had regard to the Memorandum of Understanding and subsequent correspondence in Exhibit F1 and F2 when selecting employees for retrenchment. To the extent that it demonstrably did not do so and end the employment contract of the short-term temporary employees concerned on 12 October 1993, as it had said it would, the above specified permanent employees who were retrenched were treated unfairly and harshly.

In all the circumstances and having exhausted all other avenues for the settlement of this dispute the Commission reluctantly issues this Order for the re-employment of:

    R. Russell
    G. Gower
    N. Bourke
    M. Williams
    C. Morely
    A. Gravina
    D. Hart
    M. Russell

The re-employment is to take effect as from 27 December 1993.

 

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER