The application contemplates the production of documents completely irrelevant to the determination of the Application. For example, if an Employee was employed by a different employer during this period information relevant to this employment, or information about services provided by the unions to members, or information about the union activities more broadly.
Given the unlimited scope of the production request the number of documents is potentially oppressive.
The CFMMEU is not a party to the Application and without the opportunity to oppose production of communication to and from the union.
That Employees chose to provide their personal email addresses rather than continue to communication via their work email indicates that they had concerns with their employer viewing the correspondence. It is not unreasonable for Employees to be apprehensive in circumstances where they intend to express a view contrary to their employer and the exercise of their statutory rights.
The orders are in part unnecessary given Woodside already presumably have access to communications sent and received on their servers.
[2]
[33] The alleged statements made are not so egregious to justify such extensive invasion of privacy or difficult to redress to the extent that it necessary or appropriate to do so.
[3]
[34] Woodside has unfettered access to its own employees to provide them with information to ensure that Employees are fully and accurately informed about the advantages and disadvantages of entering into bargaining and/or to correct other assertions made by the AWU or its representatives.
[4]
[35] If Woodside believe that the Petition information was tainted by incorrect information and if properly informed Employees would not support bargaining, then this can be addressed by Woodside proposing, as they have been invited to, an alternative method of assessing whether a majority of employees wish to bargain. This assessment can be timed to occur after Woodside has provided further information to its Employees to address any incorrect information which it alleges has been provide to its Employees.
[5]
[36] To the extent that Woodside assert that Employees are not freely expressing their views, to the extent such evidence exists, Woodside can call witnesses to attest to this at the Hearing or tender evidence of the outcome of its own employee surveys.
[6]
[37] Furthermore, the Directions require Woodside to circulate to Employees the materials filed by the parties and an invitation to be heard in relation to the Application. This provides Employees with access to the submissions of both parties side by side and gives them a independent voice before the FWC.
[7]
[38] For these reasons the Application to Produce is denied.
[8]
[9]
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Australian Workers' Union, The
Respondent/Defendant:
Woodside Energy Ltd [2022] FWC 1892
Legislation Cited (1)
Work Act 2009
Cases Cited (2)
Australian Workers' Union, The v Woodside Energy Ltd [2022] FWC 1892 (20 July 2022)
[24] In National Union of Workers v Lovisa Pty Limited[2019] FWC 2571, Deputy President Colman accepted that, ordinarily, there were reasonable grounds for unredacted petition documents not to be provided to the employer given concerns about disclosure of the identity of employees. The Deputy President explained (at [67]):
