T5078
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Health Services Union of Australia and Queen Victoria Nursing Home
Industrial dispute - alleged harsh unjust and unfair termination REASONS FOR DECISION This application by the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch (HSUA) related to a dispute concerning the termination of an employee by the Queen Victoria Nursing Home (the Home). Mr Watson for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited appearing on behalf of the Home informed the Commission that as a consequence of cleaning roster changes a reduction in the total number of available fortnightly hours of work occurred. The reduction in hours was because of changing service delivery needs required by residents and which were acted upon by the Home. The change in cleaning arrangements and service delivery to residents was said by Mr Watson to have been consistent with the Hostel Standards Monitoring Guidelines of the Department of Health Housing Local Government and Community Services. Mr Watson tendered Exhibits TCCI6 to 13 inclusive to support his submissions that the issues in question had been extensively discussed with the employee concerned and the HSUA. This was confirmed by Mr Stringer appearing for the HSUA. Mr Stringer also indicated that the outline of the dispute provided by Mr Watson was essentially correct, leading to the termination of the employee in May 1994. It appeared that the employee concerned was well regarded by the Home. Mr Stringer submitted that she was a loyal employee who had a previously good relationship with her employer. The dispute arose only because of her desire to continue to work full-time hours. When the reduction in hours of work took place because of the changes to the cleaning roster, the employee received a part redundancy package reflecting the fortnightly reduction in working hours. Mr Stringer submitted that the Home should have offered a redundancy option to all employees and had this occurred an opportunity for full-time employment for the employee concerned may have arisen. Mr Watson informed the Commission that this was not a practical solution as there were no other full-time positions which could have been offered. It appeared that apart from the Director of Nursing of the Home there are no other full-time positions. From the submissions of the parties, and the various exhibits presented it is obvious that a series of discussions were held with the employee and the HSUA to resolve this dispute. I consider that the Home did everything possible to persuade the employee to accept the new working arrangements for cleaning which arose primarily from the desire by residents to have the cleaning of their accommodation undertaken during a period of greater personal convenience to them. An unfortunate end result was a reduction in hours for cleaning staff which the employee concerned was apparently not able to reconcile or in the end accept. In the proceedings I concluded that the Home had followed appropriate processes in dealing with the reduction in hours and that acceptable steps were taken to persuade the employee to work the revised times. The fact that the Home and the employee could not reconcile their differences and the steadfast refusal by the employee to agree to the new working arrangements left the Home no alternative, in the end, but to terminate her employment. In the circumstances I confirm that the termination of the employee was not harsh, unjust and unfair and I decline to intervene on her behalf.
R K Gozzi Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: |