|
CEPU Wins Stay on SPB-Van Interim Order
Wednesday
13 August 2008
The
CEPU was successful yesterday in its application to stay -
or, in other terms, suspend - the application of the AIRC
Interim Order regarding our SPB van safety ban.
You'll
recall we banned the driving of the new Mercedes Sprinter
vans on safety grounds.
After
Australia Post took us to the AIRC before Commissioner Foggo
on Tuesday last week, we advised members to ignore the
recommendation to lift the ban - because there was still a
very real concern about the safety of the vehicles and you
have legal rights to decline the performance of unsafe work.
This
triggered a reaction by Post, seeking to escalate the matter
back to Commissioner Foggo in an effort to get a formal
ruling that we were engaging in unprotected industrial
action.
On
Friday, Post got the ruling they wanted - with the AIRC's
Commissioner Foggo bringing down an Interim Order forcing us
to withdraw the ban.
We
appealed the decision on a number of grounds, not least of
which, we were denied procedural fairness - because
Commissioner Foggo knocked back repeated requests by the
Union to place evidence on record that we were not engaging
in industrial action but recommending a course of action to
help members protect their own safety.
The
Commission yesterday heard our arguments that there were a
range of flaws in the decision by Commissioner Foggo to
bring down the order.
The
Commission hasn't issued reasons as to why it agrees with
our stay application. When it does, we'll release those to
you.
What
to do:
We
believe that we as a Union have at all times properly
recommended to you to exercise your rights not work in a way
you believe is unsafe. We continue this recommendation. We
refer you to the following:
|
The Workplace Relations Act 1996, section 420 (1)
states:
" For the purposes of this Act (industrial
action).... does not include the following:
(g) action by an employee if:
(i) the action was based on a reasonable concern by
the employee about an imminent risk to his or her
health or safety; and
(ii) the employee did not unreasonably fail to
comply with a direction of his or her employer to
perform other available work, whether at the same or
another workplace, that was safe and appropriate for
the employee to perform.
|
We
also point out the following from the Australia Post OH&S
Agreement - which offers similar protections to employees:
"3.4.2
Each employee must, whilst at work, take all reasonably
practicable steps to ensure that:
(i)
the employee does not take any action, or make any omission,
that creates a risk, or increases an existing risk, to the
safety of any person..."
3.4.3 "...the employee's right to cease a particular task
when the employee genuinely believes it involves acceptable
and probable risk of physical injury or danger to health.
If an employee exercises this right, he/she must notify
their HSR or their supervisor as soon as reasonably
practicable, in accordance with the requirements of the OHS
Act."
·
If
management direct you to drive the vehicles, you as an
individual are entitled to refuse that direction on the
grounds that you are being directed to perform a task that
you believe is not safe. This right is granted to
you under the law and the Australia Post OH&S Agreement.
·
Post
is entitled to provide you with alternate duties in the
meantime.
·
If management threaten to discipline
you contact the CEPU immediately
·
The
CEPU also refers to the report, put out by certified
ergonomist Mark Dohrmann where he says:
"My
recommendation is that for the safety of members (drivers)
and of the public, this van should not be used until or
unless it is supplied or fitted with windows of an
appropriate and sufficient size in both the side panels
behind the driver's seat."
|
