Resources: Blog

Employer permitted to stop delegates wearing shirts with union logo

Blog
|

It’s My Prerogative

In a recent Fair Work Commission decision in Alcoa of Australia Limited v AWU [2016] FWC 3582, the FWC looked at whether Alcoa was entitled to require all employees, including AWU delegates covered by the World Alumina Australia WA Operations AWU Enterprise Agreement 2014, and working on the Western Australia Mining site, to comply with the terms of the Western Australian Mining Dress Policy.

In a recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision in Alcoa of Australia Limited v AWU [2016] FWC 3582, the FWC looked at whether Alcoa was entitled to require all employees, including AWU delegates covered by the World Alumina Australia WA Operations AWU Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the EBA), and working on the Western Australia Mining site, to comply with the terms of the Western Australian Mining Dress Policy (the Policy).

Alcoa applied to the FWC under the dispute settlement procedure of its EBA to determine this issue.

By way of background, the Application was lodged because Alcoa employees (who were also the AWU Delegates) wore Alcoa issued uniforms but had put the AWU logo on them, in contravention of the Policy.

The primary reason Alcoa introduced the Policy was to:

  • address inconsistencies in dress standards that existed within its mining operations that were impeding its ability to comply with its duty of care;
  • foster a sense of common identity and develop team culture;
  • improve standards and promote a professional image to visitors.

The Policy provided that the shirts worn by employees on site should only bear the Alcoa logo and the first name of the employee.

The EBA specified that policies apply to all employees covered by the EBA which may be amended and replaced from time to time. There were requirements as to policy introduction that included consultation.

Prior to the policy being introduced, numerous discussions were had between late 2012 and November 2014. In January 2015 and March 2015 employees were notified that compliance with the Policy would be mandatory from 31 March 2015. From 1 April 2015, the AWU Delegates refused to comply with the Policy and disputed the requirement to comply with the Policy.

Despite written warnings issued to them, the AWU Delegates continued to wear shirts that displayed the AWU logo and maintained they were not obliged to comply with the Policy.

The FWC took into account the general principles of managerial prerogative and noted that Alcoa were not prevented by a statute, award, statutory agreement or contract of employment from making the Policy. The FWC also noted that an employer has a right to conduct and manage its business as it sees fit, and without external interference.

Alcoa submitted that it was able to require all employees, including those who were AWU Delegates covered by the EBA and working on the Western Australia Mining site to comply with the terms of the Policy because:

  • It is consistent with the EBA;
  • The Policy is a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative;
  • The instruction is lawful and reasonable in all the circumstances;
  • There had not been any previous agreement reached in relation to what clothing may (or may not) be worn by AWU Delegates.

The AWU argued that the Policy did not apply to its Delegates because Alcoa had previously and still does provide support to the AWU Delegates as noted in the EBA and previous EBAs. The AWU also argued that its Delegates should be identifiable from the other employees.

The FWC also recognised the relationship between the AWU and Alcoa and took into account that Alcoa had recognised union structures, training arrangements and made resources available. However, Alcoa’s support to the AWU did not go as far as to allow AWU delegates to wear the AWU logo on the Alcoa uniform. As a result, Alcoa did not have an obligation to support the AWU Delegates to wear the union logo on their shirts and had a right to enforce its policies.

Employers who have enterprise agreements in place and who are considering introducing or altering an existing policy for employees covered by an enterprise agreement should always check the agreement to ensure that there are no additional requirements (such as consultation over a period of time) or prohibitions. As a matter of best practice, prior to introducing a policy, all employers should consult with their employees and if applicable, have an amnesty period to allow employees time to get acquainted with the policy before it takes full effect and is enforceable.

 

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

Fair Work Commission critical of investigation process despite the employer’s valid reason for dismissal

Less is more

Employers often see the disciplinary process as an opportunity to raise every single indiscretion by an employee – even though the issues occurred in the past or are minor in nature when compared to other misconduct. However, this approach can weaken the employer’s position, rather than strengthen the decision to dismiss.

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation June 2020

Cases and Legislation June 2020 NEWS ALERTS NSW Work Health Safety Legislation Amendments The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) was recently amended giving effect to some of the recommendations of the 2018 national review of the modern WHS Act. ...

Read more...

Server dismissed for inappropriate conduct towards co-workers

Out of service

Dismissing an employee for inappropriate conduct can be a challenging process, particularly when the employee does not accept that their conduct was inappropriate.

Read more...

Court fines PCBU $60,000 for failing to re-assess the risks associated with changing site conditions

Set and forget

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.

Read more...

Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

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.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.