Working more than 40 hours in one week. - Casuals - Trial End - EBA
There has been a bit of misinformation put forward recently by Mandi Bryant and Gary Castricum regarding the Unions stance on employees who wish to work more than 40 hours in any week.
The Union is NOT opposed to any member voluntarily working more than 40 hours in any week. We accept that different individuals have different workloads and differing abilities to work increased hours. The Union does not have any type of work ban in place that restricts anyone from working more than 40 hours in a week.
Mandi Bryant attended the Industrial Relations Commission on November the 12th under Commissioner Simmonds. The Company was told in no uncertain terms that if employees work more than 40 hours in a week then they MUST BE PAID OVERTIME RATES AS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT.
Casual Employees. The Union regards employment in our industry as a career for full time workers. We have worked hard over the years to gain a measure of security for our members by way of sick pay, leave provisions ( compassionate, parental, special leave, long service leave and jury service), rostered days off, annual leave, guaranteed daily and weekly payments, superannuation and redundancy payments. In part, the clause in the EBA reads - A casual employee shall be engaged by the day and their employment shall cease at the end of each day - and - if a casual is employed for more than three consecutive days, the employee automatically becomes either a weekly or regular daily employee. There has never been a rate for casuals. But if there was it would have to be assumed that it could only be at the level of 'new starter' or below.
At the IRC hearing on the 12th of Nov the Commissioner reminded the Company that the Trial is to end on 8th of Feb. The Commissioner 'suggested' that negotiations towards the settlement of a new EBA should start immediately. He asked whether both parties would accept his services as mediator if a stalemate in negotiations was to become apparent. The Companies response has been to ignore the Commissioner ( as it has done since the inception of the trial ) and apply for an extension of the trial. The hearing for which is to take place on Thursday 22nd of Jan 2004. It is hard to imagine that the Company would have any compelling arguments for the extension of the trial. It is hard to see any area where the trial has been a success. It is also unfortunate that when the company employed new people, over and above those required for a normal 8 hour working pattern, that they did not inform them that, in the absence of a new agreement, when the trial ends that the default agreement is the 2000 EBA. Both parties have maintained that this agreement is unacceptable. The Company wants the ability to increase production during the season and we want choice as to the hours we work and the remuneration we receive.
On the 16th of Dec Mandi Bryant & Brian Chaffey had a meeting with the Shops Committee. Mandi unveiled her latest vision for an attack on our wages and conditions.
The company are not now interested in employing casuals. Their proposal is to lump RDOs , sick pay and annual leave into an hourly rate. This would be seen by some people as attractive because all they would see is the base pay rate. Of course they would get a higher dollar figure in their pay packet. But they would have no entitlement to ANY time off whatsoever. They see this as an attractive 'voluntary option' for workers.
They have offered to payout all accumulated RDOs. We have as a Union fought for years to gain RDOs and will not throw them away. We do agree that there should be no requirement to accumulate 72 hours before an RDO can be taken.
The company wants to ultimately do away with RDOs. They have indicated that would like to incorporate that money into the hourly rate in the Boning Room and the overs rate on the kill floor. More on that later.
For Labourers they want to decrease the minimum day payment to 6.5 hours.
Decrease of waiting time from $23.59 to $15. They further want to promote job - share and part-time work.
We did not get to put the demands of our members.
These are - that an 8 hour day is the norm.
Additional throughput be at overtime rates.
Removal of all clauses referring to casuals.
Removal of the requirement to accumulate 72 in RDO entitlements before an employee may take an RDO.
Increase of training money to $10 per day.
On killfloor increase the sick pay rate to the workcover rate - ie 95% of average earnings.
A wage increase for all purposes of the Agreement of 23.5% - 14.5% for the first year then 4% and 4% for years 2 and 3.
It is time to take a look at what is happening with the manning, production, and wages on the killfloor at the present. Much of the discussion in the past has been about wages at maximum thoughput. We have always maintained that the company long term has not been interested in maximum throughput. Of course there will be periods where there will be a lot of stock about and the company would want to process as much of it as possible. But for the bulk of the time there will be an average amount and at times a very low amount of stock. To the present there has not been one week in the trial where production has exceeded what could have been processed in an 8 hour by 5 day week. ( 19,140 )
Last week for example we processed on average 2816 per day or 14,080 for the week. Wages were only boosted by the fact that there are not enough slaughtermen to run full crews.
Average wage was $239.77 per day or $959.08 for the week. Down from a maximum of $1040 by $80. This week there have been enough slaughtermen to run at a 27 man chain. Average production is less than 3500 per day and wages of $207 per day or $828 - forcast for the week. If there had been enough slaughtermen to run a full team wages would more likely be in the region of $175 per day or $700 for the week.
The company has indicated that in Feb they will install a shoulder puller, in March a final puller and shortly after auto hock cutter. Looking a the jobs that may be lost we could be looking at about 26 slaughts for a full crew. The company has maintained that they will run full crews as much as they can. Therefore for a large portion of the year under trial conditions wages on the killfloor would be more than 25% less than we were achieving prior to the trial. If under their proposal RDOs were converted into a portion of overs then wages would be even less because we simply would not be doing many overs.
Where are we at the present? The company has said that they want to invite you into the Board Room to get your feedback on how the trial has progressed. In truth they couldn't care less how hard it has been on the workers. The purpose of the 'chat' is to try to convince you that they have no other options - that the Union has never offered alternatives to increased production and efficiencies. That you will be better off under their new proposal - if nothing else the experience of the last six months should have taught you the falsehood of that. At the Commission Mandi has said that she assumes you are satisfied with the trial because she has had no feedback to the contrary - feel free to tell her otherwise.
