Odessa
31-10-2007, 18:17
http://www.smh.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/workplace-department-fined/2007/10/30/1193618883975.html
Andrew West Industrial Relations Reporter
October 31, 2007
A FEDERAL court judge has thrown the book at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, fining it $30,000 for breaching the right of employees to use their personal leave to attend an anti-Work Choices rally.
Justice Catherine Branson ordered the department to pay the fine to the Community and Public Sector Union.
In an ironic twist to the ongoing Work Choices saga, in which the Government has spent $121 million of taxpayers' money advertising its policy, the union said it would spend the fine on the ACTU's anti-Work Choices TV campaign.
"It in no way levels the playing field, but it ensures some taxpayer money will go toward telling the public the truth about these laws," said the union's national secretary, Stephen Jones. "Having denied its employees the opportunity to get information about Work Choices in the first place, we need to ensure they now get accurate information."
Last month Justice Branson found the department had breached the laws it was supposed to uphold, when in November 2005 it advised other federal government agencies to deny leave applications for employees who wanted to apply for leave to attend the first ACTU national day of action against the proposed laws.
Her penalty - which is just short of the maximum fine of $33,000 allowed under the act - confirms the seriousness of the offence and will compound the problem the Government faces defending its industrial relations laws during the election campaign. It is the second time a government department has been penalised for breaking its workplace laws.
In 2005 a Federal Court judge fined the Defence Department $8000 for an offence breaching an employment agreement.
The Minister for Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, refused to comment on the finding against his department. "No, thank you," said his spokeswoman, Emma Needham. "This is a matter for DEWR."
David De Silva, an executive with the department, said the Government was disappointed at the court's decision and was examining the judgment for grounds for an appeal, which it must lodge with 21 days. But he said the department had regrets about its conduct.
"The [department's original] advice was issued to the Australian Public Service at large," he said. "It dealt with rights and obligations in granting leave under the Workplace Relations Act. We submitted to the court that, in hindsight, it would have been better if the advice was misconstrued, it was clarified."
But Mr Jones said that since the offence was uncovered, he had seen little evidence of contrition from the department. "DEWR is still going to extraordinary lengths to prevent the union talking to its employees," he said. "They have consistently refused to give me access to the workplace."
Dr Suzanne Jamieson, an expert in industrial law at Sydney University, said the Federal Court's finding mirrored the decision of the High Court in the 1998 waterfront dispute in which it upheld the right of waterside workers to join a union.
The Workplace Relations Minister, Joe Hockey, wouldn't be drawn for comment on the matter. But are we surprised?
Andrew West Industrial Relations Reporter
October 31, 2007
A FEDERAL court judge has thrown the book at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, fining it $30,000 for breaching the right of employees to use their personal leave to attend an anti-Work Choices rally.
Justice Catherine Branson ordered the department to pay the fine to the Community and Public Sector Union.
In an ironic twist to the ongoing Work Choices saga, in which the Government has spent $121 million of taxpayers' money advertising its policy, the union said it would spend the fine on the ACTU's anti-Work Choices TV campaign.
"It in no way levels the playing field, but it ensures some taxpayer money will go toward telling the public the truth about these laws," said the union's national secretary, Stephen Jones. "Having denied its employees the opportunity to get information about Work Choices in the first place, we need to ensure they now get accurate information."
Last month Justice Branson found the department had breached the laws it was supposed to uphold, when in November 2005 it advised other federal government agencies to deny leave applications for employees who wanted to apply for leave to attend the first ACTU national day of action against the proposed laws.
Her penalty - which is just short of the maximum fine of $33,000 allowed under the act - confirms the seriousness of the offence and will compound the problem the Government faces defending its industrial relations laws during the election campaign. It is the second time a government department has been penalised for breaking its workplace laws.
In 2005 a Federal Court judge fined the Defence Department $8000 for an offence breaching an employment agreement.
The Minister for Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, refused to comment on the finding against his department. "No, thank you," said his spokeswoman, Emma Needham. "This is a matter for DEWR."
David De Silva, an executive with the department, said the Government was disappointed at the court's decision and was examining the judgment for grounds for an appeal, which it must lodge with 21 days. But he said the department had regrets about its conduct.
"The [department's original] advice was issued to the Australian Public Service at large," he said. "It dealt with rights and obligations in granting leave under the Workplace Relations Act. We submitted to the court that, in hindsight, it would have been better if the advice was misconstrued, it was clarified."
But Mr Jones said that since the offence was uncovered, he had seen little evidence of contrition from the department. "DEWR is still going to extraordinary lengths to prevent the union talking to its employees," he said. "They have consistently refused to give me access to the workplace."
Dr Suzanne Jamieson, an expert in industrial law at Sydney University, said the Federal Court's finding mirrored the decision of the High Court in the 1998 waterfront dispute in which it upheld the right of waterside workers to join a union.
The Workplace Relations Minister, Joe Hockey, wouldn't be drawn for comment on the matter. But are we surprised?