Woolworths sacks workers involved in 17-day strike

After the 17-day strike that saw Woolworths lose around $100 million in sales, the supermarket giant has sacked two workers who were involved in the strikes.

The 17-day pre-Christmas stand-off between Woolworths and its warehouse workers represented by the United Workers Union was thought to have ended after workers across three Woolworths warehouses in Victoria and one in NSW voted to accept a revised offer from the supermarket.

Now, Woolworths is pursuing investigations into the alleged misconduct of striking employees who committed acts of “unlawful picketing” at sites that weren’t cleared for industrial action.

HR Leader reached out to a Primary Connect (Woolworths supply chain) spokesperson who confirmed that “as a result of serious misconduct, two team members have had their employment terminated. The incident which led to the dismissal of [the] two team members occurred at a Primary Connect site which was not subject to protected industrial action.”

“We take safety very seriously and will not tolerate any behaviour [that] endangers the safety of our team, partners, customers or members of the public,” the spokesperson said.

Along with that, the spokesperson confirmed that other investigations were ongoing.

“A number of other investigations are ongoing as a result of unlawful picketing, including blocking access to sites not subject to recent industrial action. We have not made any findings in relation to these investigations, and team members will have an opportunity to respond before any findings are made,” the spokesperson said.

During the height of the strikes, Woolworths Group filed an urgent application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) alleging that, at the time, warehouse workers were deliberately blocking access to warehouses – breaching good faith bargaining requirements. The FWC agreed with Woolworths’ assessment of the situation, finding that the union was in fact failing to bargain in good faith.

“We respect the right of team members to collectively bargain and to take protected industrial action, and no team member will face any disciplinary action for lawfully taking part in protected industrial action,” said the spokesperson.

Despite this, however, it was reported in The Guardian that some Woolworths workers are viewing this dismissal as direct retaliation for the disruption that the strikes caused. According to its reporting, one worker said: “They are upset … they are showing their power now.”

HR Leader reached out to Paul O’Halloran, employment law partner at Dentons Australia, about how employees engaging in industrial action must understand that despite these actions being legally protected, they can still face consequences for misconduct.

“Employees are not immune from disciplinary action just because they may be exercising lawful workplace rights, such as the right to strike, concurrently with behaviours that might contravene a code of conduct,” O’Halloran said.

“Union members or employees are sometimes confused about what they can do and what they cannot do during a strike or other forms of industrial action.”

O’Halloran offered an example of a previous worker who displayed offensive signage during industrial action.

“A decade ago, in the case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41, the High Court held it was not unlawful to dismiss an employee who waved a sign with offensive words on it during a picket at the employer’s mine if in doing so the employee breached a code of conduct to behave in a respectful way,” O’Halloran said.

“The High Court accepted the evidence of the decision-maker at BHP Coal, who said that the employee was dismissed for breaching company policies and not his involvement in union activities.”

“The same scenario may well apply to Woolworths if employees were engaging in workplace rights in a manner inconsistent with company policies or codes of conduct, or were otherwise doing things that were obstructive or unlawful.”