Union’s claim against Ampol’s emergency on-call shifts ‘hyperbole’

Fair Work Commission deputy president Nicholas Lake recently disagreed with a union application pertaining to an availability roster requiring workers to be on call for emergency work.

A dispute between the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union and Wood Group Australia involving mechanical employees at an Ampol oil refinery has spilled over to the Fair Work Commission (FWC), with deputy president Nicholas Lake labelling some of the union’s claims as hyperbole.

For some time, just 46 workers at the Ampol site resided in the “volunteer pool” – a group that commits themselves to being rostered to on-call shifts where they must be “ready, willing, and able” to return to the workplace on short notice in case of emergency.

Since this small group of employees were often being rostered for on-call shifts more frequently – burnout spread among the collective.

To alleviate this, Wood indicated to employees in April that they would begin to assign fitters to this volunteer pool, still allowing for employees to request to be removed from the roster based on their personal circumstances.

In response, the union claimed that Wood was seeking to “unilaterally” assign or “force-roster” workers into roster situations where they themselves had not committed themselves to being “ready, willing, and able”.

In one instance, the union compared this proposed change to that of a “conscription”.

Lake – who reviewed the union’s application – offered an expression of opinion towards the dispute, claiming that rostered on-call timetables were not “uncommon” across industries.

“The union’s position tends towards hyperbole (I note the union compared being allocated on the roster with conscription),” said Lake.

It is unclear if the union alleged that the roster changes would infringe on their right to disconnect; however, Lake asserted that there was no implication.

“It is not, in my view, a case where the employee’s right to disconnect is in peril – the employees are paid for the time when they are on-call and they are notified in advance of when they will be on the roster,” he said.

According to Lake, as a result of the dispute, union-aligned workers have stopped volunteering for this on-call shift, dropping the group of 46 to an even lower number, and ensuring that “the burden was being borne by a small number of employees”.

Lake found this to be a “disappointing” aspect of the dispute.

“The obvious consequence is that those employees were more frequently on-call. This has led to those employees feeling burnt out. This is a direct result of the conduct of the other employees. If more employees volunteered, then the burden could be shared equitably.

“The employer is responsible for the health and safety of its employees, and in my view, the employer’s new proposal is entirely reasonable.

“It balances the needs of the client … with individual personal circumstances which may prevent an employee from being able to be on-call, while achieving an equitable result.”

Lake called on the parties to consult on what he deems a “reasonable” proposition, cautioning the union’s members from continuing with their withdrawals of on-call shifts, pointing out that it could have legal ramifications.

“It is clear that there is scope for the make-up of the roster to be varied.

“… I would caution the union and its members against withdrawing labour or refusing to attend when rostered onto the availability roster.”

He also recommended that this proposition be integrated into the next enterprise agreement between the two parties, hinting that an increase in the availability allowance was already afforded to electricians who operate on the exact same site.

“Although I would certainly recommend improvements in the drafting of clauses … its current text does not prevent employees [from] being unilaterally assigned to the roster, as contended by the union,” he said.