OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd and Australian Worker's Union, New South Wales re manufacturing strategy and trial procedures [2003] NSWIRComm 198

OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd and Australian Worker's Union, New South Wales re manufacturing strategy and trial procedures [2003] NSWIRComm 198

The evidence overwhelmingly supported the company's proposals. The Commission found that removing the dedicated crane driver and reducing shift positions to 25 would not adversely affect plant operations or impede demonstrated safety improvements; enhanced training was needed and beneficial; and fixed term hire or...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Notifications Under S130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning Disputes About Manufacturing Strategy and Trial Procedures / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Determination in favour of the company; proposed work practice changes allowed.
Legal Topics
['work Practice Change' 'continuous Improvement' 'manning Levels' 'removal of Dedicated Crane Driver Position' 'training Arrangements' 'fixed Term Hire and Labour Hire' 'disputes Procedure']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'occupational Health and Safety'] ['work Practice Change' 'continuous Improvement' 'manning Levels' 'removal of Dedicated Crane Driver Position' 'training Arrangements' 'fixed Term Hire and Labour Hire' 'disputes Procedure']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notifications Under S130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning Disputes About Manufacturing Strategy and Trial Procedures / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd should be permitted to remove the dedicated crane driver position and reduce production manning from 26 to 25 per shift.' 'Whether the company should be permitted to establish training arrangements including a day work training team.' 'Whether the company should be permitted to engage supplementary labour by fixed term hire or labour hire to fill long term vacancies or facilitate training.' 'Whether the proposed changes imposed unfair or unreasonable demands on employees or raised safety concerns sufficient to prevent implementation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence overwhelmingly supported the company's proposals. The Commission found that removing the dedicated crane driver and reducing shift positions to 25 would not adversely affect plant operations or impede demonstrated safety improvements; enhanced training was needed and beneficial; and fixed term hire or labour hire would facilitate training and address manning issues without undermining employment security on the evidence before the Commission. Applying the established principles, the proposals did not impose unfair or unreasonable demands on employees or raise safety concerns sufficient to prevent implementation.

Court Disposition

Determination in favour of the company; proposed work practice changes allowed.

Orders

  • ['The Company is at liberty to remove the dedicated crane driver from shift, establish training arrangements, and engage supplementary labour in the form of fixed term hire or labour hire as advanced in these proceedings.']