Alleged dispute in relation to 'workload reductions' and a contention that the proposed reductions do not relate to surplus positions.

[1] A conference was held at Fair Work Australia on 21 March 2012 in respect to the alleged dispute and I made the following recommendation at the end of that conference.

[2] I am satisfied that the union has a right to pursue this matter pursuant to Attachment K (RRR) of the Australia Post Fair Work Agreement 2010 (the Agreement) notwithstanding the fact that extensive consultation occurred in 2011 as part of the technical review process consistent with clause 33 Consultation concerning rostering, staffing, and work windows.

[3] The union has notified Australia Post that it did not confirm that seven PTO 4 positions at Dandenong were surplus consistent with Clause 7.5 of Attachment K of the Agreement. They subsequently notified Fair Work Australia of a dispute concerning this matter and the fact that Australia Post continued to seek and process applications for voluntary retrenchment.

[4] I consider that it is appropriate in all of the circumstances to proceed to make a recommendation pursuant to Clause 19.2 of Attachment K of the Agreement.

[5] The following recommendation is made pursuant to Clause 19.2 of Attachment K of the Agreement as the resolution of the dispute.

(a) In the context of points 1 and 2 above the actions of Australia Post in continuing to seek and process applications for voluntary retrenchment was not appropriate.

(b) Having regard to the 23 November 2011 recommendation in C2011/5410 in respect to the staffing and rostering arrangements arising from the technical review process, which was accepted by the parties as the resolution to that dispute, I consider that the 7 PTO-4 positions in contention are in fact surplus.

(c) The CEPU have argued that changes to workload, machine usage, and operational windows have occurred subsequent to the 23 November 2011 recommendation. The CEPU can pursue this matter consistent with Clause 5(b) of the recommendation of 23 November 2011. The parties should confer about this matter and if the matter is not resolved it can be relisted for further conference at FWA. In the meantime Australia Post have indicated that the buffer of apprentices who are additional to the staffing level will be maintained.

(d) The issue as to whether the agreed roster arising from the 23 November 2011 recommendation in respect to Dandenong includes 4 PTO 5S or 3 PTO 5S as a part of the 68 total is in dispute. The parties should confer about this matter and if it not resolved it can be relisted for further conference at FWA.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer