Resources: Blogs

Suspicious Minds

Blogs
|

Court rules on Union’s right to consult with workers in private

There are only limited circumstances in which a union or union representative are entitled to enter the workplace of an employer. One such circumstance is permitted by work health and safety (WHS) legislation – and it permits a WHS entry permit holder to enter a workplace for the purpose of inquiring into a suspected contravention of WHS legislation that relates to, or affects, a relevant worker.

There are only limited circumstances in which a union or union representative are entitled to enter the workplace of an employer. One such circumstance is permitted by work health and safety (WHS) legislation – and it permits a WHS entry permit holder to enter a workplace for the purpose of inquiring into a suspected contravention of WHS legislation that relates to, or affects, a relevant worker.

A recent decision of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission (NSW IRC) took a detailed look at how this permission is applied in practice and what exact rights and entitlements it provides to WHS entry permit holders (see Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, New South Wales Branch v Primo Foods Pty Ltd; Primo Foods Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, New South Wales Branch [2023] NSWIRComm 1076).

The matter concerned the conduct of two WHS entry permit holders who were union officials with the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, New South Wales Branch (AMWU) and their attendance at a smallgoods factory of Primo Food Pty Ltd (the Employer).

The attendance was purportedly for the purpose of inquiring into a suspected contravention of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act).

Despite the Employer’s concerns about the adequacy of the AMWU’s particulars of the suspected contraventions, the officials were permitted to enter the workplace.

Upon entering the workplace, the officials entered the maintenance workshop and announced to workers that they were investigating safety matters that had been raised, and that they wished to talk to anyone who might have experiences that they wished to raise.

The officials then proceeded to have discussions with two workers in a separate room. Management for the Employer then attempted to move closer to the officials and the workers so that they could hear the discussions.

A heated argument then ensued in which the officials became frustrated that the Employer was attempting to listen to the discussions, as they believed that they were entitled to have conversations with workers in private. In this regard, they relied on s 130 of the WHS Act which provides that WHS entry permit holders are not required to disclose to management the names of workers and they must not do so without the workers’ consent. They also were of the view that the presence of management would hinder the officials’ “investigation”.

On the other hand, the Employer believed that the WHS Act did not give the union officials the right to have a private conference and that, if there were risks to workers’ health and safety, then the Employer ought to know about them so that they could be reduced or eliminated.

Ultimately, the union officials left the workplace asserting that their investigation was being hindered by the Employer.

In its application to the NSWIRC, the AMWU sought orders (amongst other things)that the Employer be required to facilitate the right of WHS entry permitholders to consult with relevant workers in a way that protects the rights of the workers to raise an issue or concern and to do so confidentially.

The NSWIRC refused to make this order on the basis that it did not consider that the WHS Act provided WHS entry permit holders with a right to consult with relevant workers in that way. In this regard, it noted:

  • The right of an entry permit holder to consult with relevant workers which is provided by s 117 of the WHS Act does not extend to any “issue or concern” – it is limited only to “suspected contraventions”. Therefore, the order sought by the AMWU would go beyond what is permitted by the WHS Act.
  • The WHS Act does not give entry permit holders the right to consult with relevant workers in relation to a suspected contravention on a confidential basis. There was nothing in s 117 which required such consultations to be done privately and there was no need to interpret the section that way to give effect to the purpose of the section. Further, according to the NSWIRC, s 130 of the WHS Act did not confer any such right – it only provided that workers’ names need not be disclosed to management.

In relation to the latter point, the NSWIRC did consider that if a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) insisted on being privy to such consultations and this resulted in workers not being willing to consult with WHS entry permit holders, then this might be said to be hindering or obstructing the entry permit holder’s ability to exercise their rights and might therefore warrant an order from the NSWIRC.

However, the NSWIRC made it clear that it cannot be assumed that every situation where a PCBU wishes to be present in consultation would result in hindering or obstructing the consultations – each workplace is different and so each case must turn on its own facts.

In this case, the officials had made no attempt to consult with workers in the presence of the Employer’s representatives and so it could not be said that an order was necessary.

The NSWIRC therefore dismissed the AMWU’s application.

Lessons for employers

Itis important for employers (or PCBUs more generally) to be aware of and mindful of their rights and obligations when a union official is seeking to enter the workplace for any reason, but particularly when such entry is purportedly for the purpose of inquiring into a suspected contravention of WHS legislation.

As this case shows, the right to enter a workplace on this basis does not allow a union official to dictate how such inquiries are conducted. Equally though, PCBUs must not conduct themselves in a way that might be seen to hinder or obstruct such inquiries from being made.

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

Federal Court dismisses appeal against mobile phone right of entry refusal

Payphone

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) sets out the union right of entry to entitlements and requirements. The right of entry provisions are intended to draw a balance between the right of organisations to represent their members and the right of employers and occupiers to operate without undue inconvenience.

Read more...

Rules of engagement – managing union rights of entry

Following a number of major changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), it is more important than ever for employers to know what to do and say when approached by a union or union official in their workplaces.

Read more...

Commission finds employer’s unsubstantiated allegations rendered dismissal unfair

Not mushroom for error

Where there is a factual dispute about allegations made against an employee, employers must ensure that the allegations are properly tested before proceeding to a disciplinary process. This will ensure that the employee has been provided with procedural fairness and any reasons relied on by the employer as grounds for dismissal are valid.

Read more...

Commission finds role with additional 88km travel time was not suitable alternative employment

The road less travelled

An employer may apply to the Fair Work Commission to have an employee’s redundancy pay reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) in circumstances where it has obtained “other acceptable employment” for the employee.

Read more...

FWC finds Philippine-based worker entitled to claim unfair dismissal

Objection overruled

When engaging overseas workers to perform work for an Australian entity, employers need to be mindful of the risks that such workers may be considered employees to whom the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) might apply.

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 law and sports law.

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