BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Limited v Australian Workers Union, NSW Branch - [2003] NSWIRComm 189 - NSWIRComm 2003 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWIRComm

BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Limited v Australian Workers Union, NSW Branch

[2003] NSWIRComm 189

Industrial Relations Commission (NSW)|2003-07-01|Before: Grayson DP, Hungerford J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Industrial Relations Commission (NSW)

Decision date

2003-07-01

Before

Grayson DP, Hungerford J

Catchwords

10/10/2002
10/17/2002
12/18/2002
12/19/2002

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

10/10/200210/17/200212/18/200212/19/200204/08/200304/09/200304/10/200305/27/200305/29/200306/05/2003 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/03/2003

Judgment (336 paragraphs)

[1]

CITATION : BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Limited v Australian Workers Union, NSW Branch [2003] NSWIRComm 189 PARTIES : BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Limited Australian Workers Union, New South Wales Division FILE NUMBER: 2806 of 2002 & 5150 of 2002 CORAM: Grayson DP Industrial dispute - manning levels - employer's right to manage its operations - whether unjust or unreasonable burden on employees in consequence of exercise of such right - whether proposed manning changes inherently unsafe - onus on union to establish allegations - relevance of operational efficiency - improvements over time since commissioning of new mill - inherent vagaries of new equipment - trend in global steel market - continuous pressure to maintain competitive advantage - surplus capacity - crib breaks in excess of award prescription condoned by employer CATCHWORDS : Held, allegations of industrial injustice and/or inherently unsafe working environment not made out - crib breaks in excess of award prescription not binding on employer or to be implied as term of employment contract - risk of increased line stoppages or loss of productivity attributable to reduced manning to be borne by employer - employer's claim granted - union claim refused. LEGISLATION CITED : Industrial Relations Act 1996 Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd v the Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, New South Wales Division (No 254 of 1977) Australian Tramway Employees Association case (1925) 25 CAR 597 BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd - Port Kembla Restructured Ironworker Classification Rates of Pay Award (No IRC 582 of 1996) BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Ltd - Springhill and CRM Works Employees Award 2001 331 IG 1257 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 Byrne & Frew v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 185 CLR 410 Clerks (Oil Industry) Award 150 CAR 387 Cram, Ex parte NSW Colliery Proprietors' Association Limited (1987) 163 CLR 117 Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia (Coast District) and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited [1950] Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union v Australian Gas Light Co (1955) 81 CAR 628 CASES CITED : Five-Day Working Week case (Applications by Organisations of Employees for variation of Award with respect to a Five Day Working Week (1945) 54 CAR 34 Iron and Steel Works Employees (Australia Iron and Steel Limited - Port Kembla) Award, Re [1955] AR 663 John Lysaght (Australia) Limited Port Kembla - Slit Recoil Line (IRC 2374 of 1994 unreported, Hungerford J) Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239 Merchant Service Guild of Australia v Commonwealth Steamship Owner's Association and Others (1916) 10 CAR 214 Minister of State Munitions v Arms Explosives and Munition Workers Federation of Australia (1943) 50 CAR 66 Municipal Tramways Trust, Adelaide v Australian Tramway and Motor Omnibus Employees Association (1955) 85 CAR 312 Navy v Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia (1943) 51 CAR 31 Shell Company Australia Limited and Others v Transport Workers' Union of Australia Print G6298, C No 3303 of 1986 Steel Works Employees and Engine Drivers, etc (Australian Iron and Steel Limited - Port Kembla) Awards, Re [1956] 855 The Corporation of the City of Burnside v The Municipal Officer's Association & Anor (1985) 10I IR 313 Utah Construction Ltd v Transport Workers Union of Australia (1954) 78 CAR 733 HEARING DATES: 10/03/2002; 10/10/2002; 10/17/2002; 12/18/2002; 12/19/2002; 04/08/2003; 04/09/2003; 04/10/2003; 05/27/2003; 05/29/2003; 06/05/2003 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/03/2003

[51]

c. As the strip leaves the Process Section, it then enters the Side Trimmer area where the steel strip is trimmed back to the desired width. This is done with two sets of steel cutting blades which trim the edges of the strip. This is a fully automated process. However again an operator is engaged at this part of the process to monitor the surface quality and width of the strip. The function is referred to as the Side Trimmer Operator. Manual intervention is required when malfunction occurs for example where a poor cut results in a jamming of side scrap. The operator is required to remedy this situation and the time to clear these jams could be between 2 and 30 minutes. On average I estimate a problem of this type would arise approximately once in a 12 hour shift. Annexure JP 6 is a copy of a photograph of the Side Trimmer Pulpit and Annexure JP 7 is a copy of a photograph of the strip looking towards the Side Trimmer from the Side Trimmer Pulpit. d. The strip is now clean and at the correct width to enter the cold reduction mill. The mill is a set of five "stands". Each stand made up of large steel rolls including two small diameter work rolls which are in contact with the strip surface and two larger rolls called back up rolls which exert force to the work rolls to reduce the strip thickness. As the strip moves from stand to stand it is subjected to extreme force and tension which progressively reduces the thickness of the strip to the desired thickness. During this process the temperature of the strip and the rolls increases and needs to have coolant applied. e. The mill speed, roll force, strip tension and coolant flow is fully automated and controlled by the mill computer. However monitoring of the process and fine tuning adjustments of these parameters must occur. This function is carried out by the Roller who is the second staff officer on shift. (When the Staff Roller is on annual leave or crib break (but not at other times) an operator with appropriate training relieves in the Roller function. However the operator only performs the operator part of the Staff Roller function and not the other staff and related functions which the staff roller performs. Annexure JP 8 is a copy of a photograph of the coils at the Exit End viewed from the Roller Pulpit, and a coil at the lower front of the photo at the Inspection Table. f. After the strip has been rolled in the cold reduction mill, the strip is recoiled onto a "mandrel". It is removed from the mandrel by the coil car and placed on a walking beam which progresses the coil through a banding station, a labelling station and onto an automated guided vehicle stand where it awaits transportation to the next process via an AGV (Automatically Guided Vehicle). Every step in this process is automatic. The coil may be delivered to packing or for further processing at one of the other manufacturing units in the other departments on the site. g. Apart from the Side Trimmer Operator (see above) there are a further 3 operator functions at the Exit End of the CPCM. One of these operators mans the No. 15 crane and the other two carry out duties on the mill floor. These duties include inspection of coils, manually banding coil if the strapping machine fails, belly banding of "pack" coils and assisting the crane in tasks of scrap bin removal and roll changes. The crew will call in another man if belly banding is over 200 tonne of coils. Annexure JP 9 is a copy of a photograph of the Mill Operator Manual control panels at the Exit End. Annexure JP 10 is a copy of a photograph of the Exit End Comfort Station.

[106]

40 As to the proposed manning arrangements, Mr Keisel said: The Pay Off Reel Operator and Welder Operators roles can be performed by a single operator. There are a number of reasons why this is the case. Firstly, physically the Pay Off Reel Operator and Welder Operator are located side by side. It is a matter of taking about 20-25 paces to walk from the pay off reel operator cabin to the welder operator cabin along a flat platform. Secondly, as I have said earlier, the Pay Off Reel Operator and Welder Operator functions are sequential. That is, when the pay off reel is loading a coil, the welder is not operating. Similarly, when the welder is operating, the pay off reel is not at the stage of loading the next coil onto the leveller. A single operator would be able to monitor the pay off reel operation as a coil is loaded onto the pay off reel and then walk along the platform alongside the strip as it moves down to the welder. The operator could then observe the weld, check the scarfing and the scarfer tips etc after the weld and perform any manual function (on the occasions it is required). Once the weld is completed, the operator can return to the pay off reel and await the loading of the next coil. It is also notable that the two jobs, the pay off reel operator and welder operator jobs are more observational and do not require significant physical work. Even where manual control must be taken over the operations, this is done using a control panel to operate machinery. There is less need for manual intervention at the pay off reel and welder because of the process improvements which have been made over the years. For example, the maintenance practice of building up rolls so the settings can stay the same makes the process leveller and welder much more reliable. There have been improvements in the reliability of the welder machine and the Entry Looper (which is physically located after the welder machine). Previously, the welder operator often had to deal with track off problems with the Entry Looper. These problems are now rare. Programming and maintenance changes have brought about other improvements as well; Even when manual override is required at the pay off reel or welder, it will only be occurring at one or other not both at the same time. For example if the pay off reel is being manually operated, the Welder operator will not generally have work at the welder station. If the welder is required to change scarfer tips at the welder, the Staff Roller slows the line to allow it to occur - a separate Pay Off Reel Operator is not required at that time. If there is any period of down time required for the welder to deal with welding problems or some other matter, the Coil Preparation Operator would be able to assist since while the line is stopped, the Coil Preparation Operator will not be preparing more coils for entry into the line. It is generally the case that the Pay Off Reel and Welder Operators spend quite a deal of time talking to each other during the shift. Each operator also spends time reading etc because the functions are almost fully automated with manual override being required only on occasion. It is often the case that I observe only 1 of the Pay Off Reel Operator and Welder Operator on the platform or the two of them talking together in one or other station, or both reading or playing computer games. It is to be noted that the Pay Off Reel Operator and Welder Operator functions are effectively operative only while the CPCM is operative. During down time these 2 positions have very few operator functions to perform. Often it is the case that while the exit end is working on a problem which has caused the CPCM to stop, the Pay Off Reel and Welder Operator and the Coil Prep Operator may be idle and will talk with each other, or read or play cards etc. I outline later in this statement how these operators will be able to help if required on some occasions to do so during down time at the exit end. Because most of the operators are skilled and paid to perform the various roles throughout the CPCM, this can be easily accommodated. There are only a few operators who do not have a crane ticket and about three of the current 45 operators at the entry end who do not have exit end qualification and two operators at the exit end who do not have full qualifications to perform entry end work. Finally, I note that while in my view the Pay Off Reel and Welder Operator functions can be performed by one person for a shift, I also note that if they wish to do so, operators can share functions for a shift - for example, the Pay Off Reel/Welder Operator could swap with the Coil Preparation Operator half-way through the shift or on some other rotating basis if the operators wished to do so in the same way as operator currently rotate daily into the different roles. On analysis of the work performed in the mill, there is not a need to have a Crane Driver as well as 2 mill operators at the exit end. Currently the number 15 crane has a permanently designated driver. Some of the number 15 crane drivers remain in the crane for much of the shift. Other crane drivers may come down from the crane but generally are not required on the plant. In the past, there was much more crane driving work required. This is because in the past the number 15 crane driver performed functions which included:

[112]

f. Number 15 or 28 crane used to be used to place scrap coils from the coil field onto semi-trailer, now the coils go directly into a scrap bin, which is then taken away by a contractor. This has reduced the workload of the cranes. On my observation the Crane Driver has about 8 hours time spare per shift to assist with other functions. Recently the Metal Coating Lines was upgraded increasing the coil size it can handle meaning the CPCM can run off larger coils, resulting in fewer coils to make for the same tonnage. (85% of CPCM coil goes to the Metail Coating Lines.) This means fewer coils for the Mill Operator to inspect, strap and handle. It might be said that when there is a wreck that is when hands are needed. However in addition to the 15 Crane Driver and Mill Operator, when there is a wreck, the operators at the Entry End can help because they will not be required at their stations. The crib relief or annual leave relief may also be available to assist. Similarly it might be said that more hands are required for the daily roll change - however again the Line is idle for the roll change and the entry end operators, crib relief or annual leave relief can assist. If manning is reduced by 3, then, having regard to award crib breaks, the one crib relief will relieve for 5 hours 20 minutes of crib per day (8 people by 2 crib breaks by 20 minutes each). With the current manning, each crib relief relieves for 3 hours 40 minutes per day. The difference is 1 hour and 40 minutes. However, I note that because the Line is reliable and is automated and workload does not require it, usually crib breaks extend out to 30 minutes or more. Indeed, at the Exit End, the operators currently take 3 breaks - 1 half hour and two 40 minute breaks. The workload has meant that the operators have been able to have some extra time at crib. Not only have I observed the lengths of crib, but when I have relieved in the Staff Roller job and taken the cribs along with the operators I have had these breaks and have been relieved by the Relief Roller for these breaks. Taking the extra length of breaks into account, the crib reliefs are already relieving for the amount of time which would be required under the propose manning change. The above having been said, I would expect that even with the proposed manning changes, most of the time, with the operations working smoothly, there will be a lot of time where some of the operators will not be required hands on - eg the crane and mill operator.

[125]

i. perform performance reviews. Therefore, although the specific operational function of the Roller position is automated, it is the highest level function in the production process and from the staff roller point of view there are numerous other functions which the staff roller must perform;" Pat Haskard is the Staff Roller on my shift. Pat Haskard was previously a mechanical maintenance employee and a staff co-ordinator. Mr Haskard has a trade qualification as well as a certificate in mechanical engineering. He has a lot of plant experience and analytical and decision making experience. On the other shifts, Bob House has also had previous experience as a Mechanical Maintenance Co-ordinator, and Steve Oehlman was previously a supervisor at the temper mill before coming into the staff roller position. Peter Griffiths was a CPCM supervisor and a person who has a lot of rolling experience. In about 1996 there were discussions about operators (Ironworkers) performing the Rollers position. The proposal was that by a process of natural attrition when a Staff Roller left their position (eg to take up another role, or retire etc), an existing operator in the CPCM would be trained up to perform the role. The operators did not want to undertake supervisory duties because it involved telling fellow Iron Workers what to do and the operators also said the pay offered was not high enough. After that the Company negotiated for operators to relieve the Staff Roller during crib and annual leave. Temporary training relief was made available on the CPCM operation line to allow operators to train up in the roller's pulpit. When trained to relieve the Roller these employees were graded as Level 4 operators. Temporary relief in an operator's position on the CPCM was provided by surplus employees from other departments while the operator training was in the Roller functions. The Operators relieve the Roller for crib breaks and annual/LSL leave (ie relief for about 6 weeks or less per year). When an operator relieves the Roller they perform the operation tasks associated with the Rolling function but do not supervise or take any decision making actions which the Staff Roller makes. Similarly the operators do not perform the Staff Rollers other management or staff functions. Any decisions needed to be made is referred to a staff member. Therefore while it is true that operators can be trained to perform the operational functions of the staff roller position. However, not every operator has the capability to be trained up to the position. Furthermore more it takes quite a degree of training and then experience on the job to perform the roller operational functions well. Because they are more difficult not everybody is suited to the role. The roller job is the most complicated at the CPCM involving understanding of frictions and tension, control systems and troubleshooting, ensuring for example, roll force tensions are appropriate, motor current in the mill stands are appropriate, mill set ups are correct, including the right coolant applications and changing coolant and an awareness of how different products are run eg different steel grades etc. When the staff roller is not on duty and is being relieved by operators, I generally receive more phone calls to deal with issues and generally see an increase in non-prime coils (ie coils which do not meet specific customer specifications and are reclassed). Operators performing the roller position will generally raise issues for decision making by staff and do not perform the various other staff functions of the Staff Roller. Overall, the current Staff Rollers are far more experienced, have the skill training and capability and higher qualifications and higher level analytical thinking for the staff roller position. They are generally in a better position to understand the whole of plant operations, non-operational matters and handling of supervisory, management, decision making and staff related functions. Therefore, overall, while an operator can be trained up for the operational functions of the roller position the current staff rollers are better qualified for the role. Based on their experience; the additional work functions that they perform; their skills, qualifications and abilities, the current Staff Rollers are the most qualified persons in the CPCM for the roller functions. They are able to observe the whole of the CPCM process with the highest degree of skill. No existing operator has the same capability and it would take a number of years to get to the same level, even assuming those operators were equal on other matters such as analytical ability, qualification/training and were willing and able to perform various supervisory, management and related functions. If an operator moved into the roller position on a fulltime basis, my responsibilities would certainly increase and make management more difficult. I would have to perform a number of additional functions together with the staff technical officer which would be difficult in the circumstances and given the work already required.

[280]

70 In Re John Lysaght (Australia) Limited Port Kembla - Slit Recoil Line (IRC 2374 of 1994 unreported), Hungerford J summarised the principle in this way: A question of manning is, it seems to me, concerned necessarily with the management of an employer's business. The long settled approach to such matters by the Commission is for it not to intervene by assuming the role of the employer but rather to assess whether what the employer proposes would impose unfair or unreasonable demands on employees, including unsafe work practices. So much was acknowledged in Re John Lysaght (Australia) Limited - Port Kembla - Slit Recoil Line - Rates of Pay Award when the present award was made. Specifically as to disputes about the level of manning, I refer to what was observed in the unanimous decision of the High Court in Re Cram; Ex parte NSW Colliery Proprietors' Association Limited (1987) 163 CLR 117 at 135-137: Many management decisions, once viewed as the sole prerogative of management, are now correctly seen as directly affecting the relationship of employer and employee and constituting an "industrial matter". A dispute about the level of manning is a good example. It has a direct impact on the work to be done by employees; it affects the volume of work to be performed by each employee and the conditions in which he performs his work. So also with the mode of recruitment of the workforce. The competence and reliability of the workforce has a direct impact on the conditions of work, notably as they relate to occupational health and observance of safety standards. Employees, as well as management, have a legitimate interest in both of these matters. … These considerations indicate that the objection voiced by O'Connor J in Clancy to the regulation and control of business enterprises by industrial tribunals is not a matter that goes to the jurisdiction of the tribunals. Rather it is an argument why an industrial tribunal should exercise caution before it makes an award in settlement of a dispute where that award amounts to a substantial interference with the autonomy of management to decide how the business enterprise shall be efficiently conducted.

[281]

71 In Re Steel Works Employees and Engine Drivers, etc (Australian Iron and Steel Limited - Port Kembla) Awards [1956] 855 at 859-860 Richards J observed: The Company is entitled to decide upon and introduce its own system of working and only in very extreme circumstances would the Commission interfere with this right. In Re Iron and Steel Works Employees (Australia Iron and Steel Limited - Port Kembla) Award [1955] AR 663 at p665, when dealing with a question of manning at the soaking pits at the Company's work, the court ( Richards J) said; Prima facie, the Company has the right to manage its business in its own way and is entitled to exercise its own discretion in the manning of its plant. In order to obtain an order against the Company in relation to the manning decided upon by it in a case of this kind, the Union carries the onus of establishing that the work which the employee is called upon to perform on his shift is more than a fair shift's work under the conditions in which the work is to be performed. In Re Dispute Between the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia (Coast District) and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited [1950] at 371 Cantor J at p372 said: On the authorities, summarised the following is the legal position: First, an employer has the right to manage his own business in his own way; secondly, the Commission will not intervene with this right unless it is satisfied that intervention is justified because in the exercise of this right unjust or unreasonable demands or conditions are imposed, or because the action of the employer is taken in bad faith or amounts to victimisation or oppression or the like. However, where the Company has introduced a new system of working the Commission will readily intervene in relation to ancillary matters such as where it is shown that the manning laid down by the Company is insufficient to carry out the work required or if the working conditions are such that they warrant the awarding of specific spell time or special rates of remuneration.

[331]

113 In that regard, the Company relies upon the well-established principle that arbitral tribunals will not deprive an employer of the right to choose its own employees unless a clear case of industrial injustice exists. The principle was discussed by the Federal Court of Australia Industrial Division in The Corporation of the City of Burnside v The Municipal Officer's Association & Anor (1985) 10I R 313. In that case at pp 321-323 Keely J said this: The employer's right may be affected by an award clause which requires him to give preference to members of a union and thereby limit the class of persons from whom the employer may choose, but the employer nonetheless retains the right of selection of the particular employee for appointment or promotion. Under awards giving 'preference", neither the selection of the employee nor the decision as to whether a potential employee is "suitable", is a matter assigned to a Board of Reference for "determining" as a "matter…which, under the award, may from time to time require to be…determined…by the Board" (s 50 of the Act). The principle of not interfering with the employer's right to select his employees has often been enunciated by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, by Conciliation Commissioners and by members of the Arbitration Commission in making awards and giving decisions under the Act. An early application of the principle is recorded in the Merchant Service Guild case (1916) 10 CAR 214 at 228 where Higgins J, in his reasons for judgment under the heading of "Promotions and Vacancies", said: I need not repeat what I have said in previous cases as to the practice of this Court to avoid interfere with the discretion of the employers in the choice of employees…I want to leave the employer's hands free in the selection of the suitable men for positions to be filled… Beeby J in the Australian Tramway Employees Association case (1925) 25 CAR 597 at 605 applied the same general principle. The principle has had quite general acceptance and has been applied in State Tribunals. A Full Bench of the NSW Industrial Commission, constituted by Piddington , Street and Cantor JJ, in Winsor's case (1929) 28 AR 9NS) 235 at 236 said: To deprive an employer of his right to choose his own employees and appoint them to the positions in his employment which he regards as proper is, of course a serious matter, and the mere fact that the Commission might disagree as to the wisdom or propriety of any particular appointment or dismissal by an employer is not in itself sufficient to justify intervention on the part of the Commission. That passage was quoted by Commissioner Tonkin in Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union v Australian Gas Light Co (1955) 81 CAR 628 at 629. Although the principle was first expressed in the early years of arbitration, it has been repeatedly applied in the years since World War II. The principle was succinctly stated by Commissioner Chambers (as he then was) in Utah Construction Ltd v Transport Workers Union of Australia (1954) 78 CAR 733 at 735: This is perhaps an occasion which it is desirable to restate the principle, well established and followed by Judges of Commonwealth and State Arbitration Courts and Conciliation Commissioners, that management's right to 'hire and fire' should not be interfered with unless a clear case of industrial injustice exists. (See also the Five-Day Working Week case (1945) 54 CAR 34 at 35 for an application of the same general principle by a Full Court, consisting of Piper CJ, Drake-Brokman , O'Mara and Kelly JJ). It may be noted that the principle was applied even during the war years when the Court, in addition to its normal powers under the Act, exercised wider powers under the National Security (Industrial Peace) regulations. Those regulations were based upon the view that it was necessary for the efficient prosecution of the war that "peace in industry" in war-time did not lead to interference with the employer's right to choose his employees and to select those for promotion. In Minister of State for the Navy v Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia (1943) 51 CAR 31 at 36 O' Mara J said: …those who are responsible for the conduct and management of the Naval Establishment must have the right to select their supervisors and must be maintained in that right. It is for them to apply their own standards in selecting supervisors…The Court is not entitled to give effect to its own opinion as to what is considered desirable in supervisors. In Minister of State Munitions v Arms Explosives and Munition Workers Federation of Australia (1943) 50 CAR 66 Mr Commissioner Mooney said: This court has frequently laid down as a principle that it will not interfere with the internal administration of an employer's business,…(a matter) that should clearly be left to the discretion of the employers is the selection of employees for promotion. The Management has the right to select a person for promotion from the employees of the undertaking wherever employed. The judgment of a Full Court in Municipal Tramways Trust, Adelaide v Australian Tramway and Motor Omnibus Employees Association (1955) 85 CAR 312 related specifically to the question whether a Board of Reference should be given the power to interfere with the rights of management. A Commissioner's decision had conferred "a right of appeal to a Board of Reference from any decision by the management by virtue of which an employee loses two days pay or more or has been demoted or dismissed." In allowing an appeal against that provision Kirby , Dunphy and Wright JJ, in a unanimous judgment said (at 329) that: …it is a matter of principle that the right of an employer to manage his own business should not be encroached upon by an award of an industrial authority unless there is clear proof of injustice in his dealings with his employees. The principle that Arbitration Tribunals will not interfere with an employer's right to "hire and fire" his own employees unless a clear case of industrial injustice exists - applied by so many distinguished judges and arbitrators over so many years - was not cut down or impinged upon in any way material to the present proceedings by the decisions of a Full Bench ion 1973 in inserting a preference clause in the Clerks (Oil Industry) Award . The Commission ( Moore and Aird JJ and Mr Commissioner Holmes ) pointed out (150 CAR 387 at 391) that the section in the Act, great care had to be used in applying what had been said in those earlier cases granting preference on that limited basis. There was nothing in the Full Bench decision which was inconsistent with the general principle of non-interference with an employer's right to "hire and fire".

BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Limited v Australian Workers Union, NSW Branch

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (336 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)

Cited By (4)