Resources: Blogs

Managerial prerogative

Blogs
|

You can leave your hat on (but take the union sticker off)

We recently discussed managerial prerogative and the ability for management to direct employees not to wear shirts with a union logo on them in accordance with the employer’s policy. The issue with respect to union material on employee work uniforms again came before the Fair Work Commission in CEPU, AMWU, CFMEU v Laing O’Rouke Australia Construction Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 3699.

Recently in our blog article It’s my prerogative – Employer permitted to stop delegates wearing shirts with union logo we discussed managerial prerogative and the ability for management to direct employees not to wear shirts with a union logo on them in accordance with the employer’s policy.

The issue with respect to union material on employee work uniforms again came before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in CEPU, AMWU, CFMEU v Laing O’Rouke Australia Construction Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 3699 (8 June 2016) (Laing Case).

In the Laing Case, the CEPU, AMWU and CFMEU (the Unions) made an application to the FWC asking it to deal with a dispute in accordance with the dispute settlement procedures in the Laing O’Rouke Construction Australia Pty Ltd Ichthys Onshore Construction Greenfields Agreement (the Agreement).

Laing had directed its employees who were either members or eligible to be members of the Unions to remove stickers from their hard hats. The Unions’ application alleged that this direction was not lawful and reasonable. Laing employees had been disciplined for their refusal to follow a direction to remove stickers from their hard hats. The Unions submitted that the direction to remove the stickers from the hard hats was a misapplication of Laing’s obligations under the Building Code 2013 and was a form of adverse action (as the employees were engaging in industrial activity).

The FWC considered the Agreement to firstly determine whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear this issue. It determined that the dispute must be about a matter arising under the Agreement. In particular, that clauses 6(a)(6) or 6(b)(3) (dealing with the Agreement objectives) and clause 18 (objectives and steps of the dispute resolution process) did not give rise to a dispute under clause 18. Those clauses dealt with listening to another’s point of view and acting amicably to resolve differences of opinion. The clauses also required leaders act to address concerns raised appropriately and in a timely manner.

As a result, the Application was dismissed.

 

So what does this mean for employers?

Practically speaking and as the FWC has previously confirmed, an employer can direct an employee with respect to uniform requirements. Should an employee fail to comply with the policy or directive, the appropriate disciplinary action would then be enforced. It is important however, that employers make it clear in writing about changes in its expectations to prevent any employee arguing they were not aware of new requirements. Of course, any disciplinary action should be conducted, as always, in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

The importance of making policies accessible and easy to understand

Tell me in layman’s terms

Drafting workplace policies and procedures can be a daunting exercise – it requires a careful balance of including (or omitting) information that is necessary from a legal standpoint, whilst still remaining easy to understand and follow for employees.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds out-of-hours drink driving offence was not a valid reason for dismissal

Off the clock

Generally, the way in which an employee conducts themselves out-of-hours does not fall within the realm of what the employer can supervise or control. However, there are times where an employee’s conduct after business hours and away from work can impact the employment relationship.

Read more...

Vaccinations and the workplace

Shots fired

One of the most topical questions for employers during the COVID-19 pandemic has been whether they need to introduce policies that mandate vaccinations and, if so, what can be done to enforce them in the workplace.

Read more...

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.

Read more...

Employer found liable for workers compensation despite worker’s unreasonable perceptions

Fact or fiction

A recent decision of the New South Wales Personal Injury Commission serves as a reminder of the differing standards of proof when determining liability for claims of bullying and/or harassment under workers compensation laws and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Commission finds employee’s flexible working request to work entirely from home was not reasonable

The worst has now passed

One of the many changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) introduced this year include the Fair Work Commission’s new powers to deal with disputes relating to requests for flexible working arrangements.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.