EBA7 Update - What's good for Post should be good for you, right?
January 30, 2008

“EBA = Respect” campaign EBA7 Update

What’s good for Post should be good for you, right? You would think there is a simple answer to that question – but think again. Last week the CEPU took a stand with Australia Post to protect member’s current long standing conditions and entitlements.  Predictably Australia Post rolled out some desperate claims through its latest SIB, which made out a hysterical case as to why senior management doesn’t like Common Law Agreements protecting member conditions they bumped out of EBA7.  In a nutshell, this is what Post argues: Post doesn’t like Common Law Agreements covering industrial or work related matters – even though their executives conditions and entitlements are covered by similar agreements;   Post says using Common Law Agreements is new to them and never done before – but when changing the way work is performed, senior management tells you not to live in the past; Post thinks the EBA is the best way to cover industrial or workplace matters.   But here’s a quick question – does Australia Post only use EBAs to influence your employment conditions and they way you work?  Are they being totally upfront about that point … the answer is – NO.  Here’s why. Australia Post relies upon another very powerful legal mechanism that sits totally outside your EBA.  It can powerfully influence your work conditions.  You have no say in the way it’s used.  The way Post does this? Through Principal Determinations.  A legal mechanism granted to Post via Parliament that lets it, from time to time, set the way you work. For example, during the EBA talks we asked them to drop the Principal Determination that allows Post management to force you to see their Facility Nominated Doctors after notifying a work related injury or when making a claim for workers compensation.  Post refused – and will keep using its available Principal Determinations in any way it sees fit, despite you and your treating doctor objections.  They love that power and will not give it up because they control your workers compensation claim from the outset and appeal processes right to the very end utilising their FNDs medical opinions as evidence. So how is it, then, that Post can abuse the real purpose of Principal Determinations but then try to deny you – through the union – the ability to enter into a Common Law Agreement to protect and uphold your long standing conditions and entitlements through a court, if the need arose? There’s a simple answer – the union is exposing senior management’s true position …  what’s good for Australia Post is not good for you. Post now likes the AIRC? Post now says it thinks the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is the best place to sort out disputes: even though it spent over a year fighting CEPU efforts to keep the AIRC as an umpire in disputes. And despite their new found love of the AIRC, the CEPU was also forced to go to the Victorian Magistrates Court to defend the payment of entitled shift penalty rates for part time members (which the union won). The simple fact is this – Post fears the power of Common Law Agreements.  It knows through a Common Law Agreement it is forced to respect the law and the decisions made in the courts. And if there was ever a reason to use a Common Law Agreement to cover the nearly 30 unenforceable letters – then that’s it. Here's our simple position: members should only support EBA7 if a Common Law Agreement is reached with Australia Post that secures all conditions that are not inclusive in the new EBA.   Please contact the Branch on 82325999 if you require any further information.   Graham Lorrain Branch Secretary CEPU Communications Division - SA/NT 30/01/08

CEPU pushes for stronger protection of your conditions

On 16 January 2008, the Divisional Executive made an important unanimous decision to help protect your conditions from the effects of WorkChoices. This decision follows:

"The Divisional Executive refers to the position it took on 14 January 2008 in relation to Australia Post's use of WorkChoices to remove long standing employment conditions and understandings from EBA7.

    The Divisional Executive notes that some unions – especially those representing members working in state government corporations or the private sector – have been successful in negotiating separate legal agreements outside of EBAs to cover “prohibited” conditions that have been removed from other awards or agreements.

    Known as Deeds or Common Law Agreements, these documents are easier to enforce through courts if the agreements are broken.  Australia Post has said it will only give commitments in relation to these conditions and other matters via a series of unenforceable letters to the unions.

    The Divisional Executive notes that despite the CEPU request re-submitted to Australia Post on 14 January 2008, management has refused to reconsider its opposition to the establishment of Common Law Agreements to secure those conditions and understandings that cannot be included in the proposed EBA7 due to the former Howard Government's WorkChoices laws.

    In light of this refusal, the CEPU cannot recommend to members that they accept unenforceable letters covering these conditions when there is an opportunity for Australia Post to enter into legal, common law agreements to protect their entitlements, conditions and job security.

    The CEPU recommends that members should only support EBA7 if a Common Law Agreement is reached with Australia Post that secures those conditions that fall outside of the EBA because they are considered "prohibited matter" by WorkChoices and/or are covered by the unenforceable letters proposed by Australia Post."

Across the union movement and the community, many of us worked hard through the Your Rights At Work campaign to defeat WorkChoices and stop these laws from removing long standing conditions.

With a change of Government, we think members and their families deserve better protection of their conditions, particularly in relation to franchising and contracting out.  That’s why your union is taking this stand.

NEXT STEPS: AUSTRALIA POST TO DECIDE

Australia Post can take a positive step and prove that they will live up to their promises -- they should do what many state government businesses have done and enter into a Common Law Agreement that protects those conditions that the Howard Government’s WorkChoices laws aimed to remove.
                                                
If you have any comments or feedback, contact the Branch on 82325999 or email us at eba7@cepu.asn.au or

                             Branch Secretary
                             Graham Lorrain 
                             17th January 2008

Quick answers to your questions

Why has the CEPU taken this stand after recommending the EBA?
While EBA7 represents a good deal for members, Australia Post has used WorkChoices to remove other long standing conditions, particularly in relation to franchising and contracting out.

This is because under WorkChoices, agreements containing clauses on franchising or the use of agency staff were considered to contain “prohibited” content.  Unions and their officials could be fined for even asking for these things to be included in an agreement.

Some unions – especially those in state government corporations – have been successful in reaching separate legal agreements outside of EBAs to cover “prohibited” conditions.  Known as Deeds or Common Law Agreements, these are documents you can enforce through courts if the agreements are broken.

Post has said it was directed to not enter into such agreements with unions by the former Howard Government.  With the former Government now out of office – based on the campaigning of unions and their members through the Your Rights At Work campaign – we think we should take every chance to protect conditions threatened by WorkChoices.  That’s why we’re taking this stand.

Is the EBA process delayed because of this stand?
If Australia Post quickly agrees to enter into a Common Law Agreement, the EBA consultation process can begin in February and employees can vote on the agreement in March. 

However, if Post refuses to enter into the Agreement, the CEPU will reconsider its support for EBA7.

What conditions does the CEPU want covered in a Common Law Agreement?
All the conditions that have existed under previous or current awards and agreements that have been classed by WorkChoices as “prohibited content”.  These items were excluded by Post through the EBA talks and dealt with in a series of letters from Post where they made some promises about how they would treat these conditions in the future.

These letters covered a very broad range of issues including: franchising, retail conversion policy, contracting out, technical matters, delivery assurances, union delegate guidelines, fixed term employee matters.

After members voted to support taking industrial action against Post, Post agreed to cover the subject of the letters through the dispute resolution process – meaning that if they wanted to change their commitments, they would consult with us and if they didn’t consult properly we could use arbitration as a last resort to resolve a dispute about the letters.

The union wants a stronger, more enforceable commitment for members – that’s why we want to place the commitments Post has made in the letters into a legal, more enforceable Common Law Agreement.

Do we need a Common Law Agreement?
Yes – because Common Law Agreements are stronger and easier to enforce than letters containing promises or non-binding commitments.

Will our pay rises and conditions be affected?
The only way that pay and conditions could be affected is if Post breaks its commitment to pay your pay rises in line with what they have announced – however because there is no formal legal agreement, there is nothing to compel Post to honour these commitments.  This is why we believe formal wage agreements and legal agreements offer you more protection for your conditions and job security.

Why won’t Post agree to a Common Law Agreement?

Australia Post EBA7 claims - no respect for the truth

August 24, 2007

Australia Post has bent the truth to breaking point in a series of desperate attempts to justify their delays in agreeing to a fair EBA.

Yes, everyone knows your Union has met with Australia Post to negotiate a fair EBA.

But we will not be bullied into signing a document that shows NO RESPECT for our members’ genuine claims.

For the first time in ages, Post have spun out three SIBs on the EBA in one week – against a wall of management silence in Post workplaces, because even managers tell us they don’t believe in this EBA. Some of Australia Post’s "spin":

• Delaying the Pay Rise. Australia Post says they want to pay you a fair pay rise. Back on 3 July, your Union wrote to the Managing Director and said our members want: “a higher pay offer to compensate for the delay in resolving this EBA”.  We’ve said, if you can’t back pay, offer a bigger first year pay rise.  Simple.  But they don’t want to.

• Lies on penalty rates. In Australia Post’s 21 August SIB they said “the unions want us to pay penalty rates to new recruits irrespective of their starting times”.  On 12 July, we put this in writing to Post:
  “No permanent employee currently working a shift that attracts a shift penalty will lose his/her shift penalty by being forced to change nominal shift start times, where the change in time is within one hour of the current start time of the workplace/shift.” (CEPU submission, 12/7/7)
  If a person off the street read these two statements, how could we stop them from saying Post is lying?

• Dodgy words on Franchising and Contracting. Australia Post says the guarantees we seek on franchising and contracting are against “government legislation” (they don’t say ‘WorkChoices’ anymore).
  What didn’t they really tell you? What they told us during the EBA talks: they want maximum flexibility to do what they want on things such as contracting out. 
  
  If they misrepresent union positions on the EBA, can they live up to the promises they give in their letters on franchising and contracting out?

• But here’s a true claim: Post are telling you the truth when it comes to arbitration. They said: “What we won’t do is allow the Commission (AIRC) to make decisions about major change…” (SIB, 21 August).
  
  What they mean is: you have no arbitration-protection on workplace change.  And because the redundancy agreement is not covered by arbitration in management’s draft EBA, ask yourself – where is my job security?

We also think it does not respect your rights at work – it will make you worse off in the future.

Be absolutely clear, your Union is ready and willing to agree to a new EBA for our members. But it must be a fair EBA that provides proper, essential pay rises and guarantees on working conditions.

DON’T BE FOOLED! YOUR UNION IS FIGHTING WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE AUSTRALIA POST DELIVERS FOR YOU!

If you need information on how to be part of the CEPU’s EBA7 campaign, contact your Branch on 82325166.

Graham Lorrain
Branch Secretary
CEPU Communications Division   24th August 2007

Download this article in .PDF format here.

Federal Government and Australia Post rip out journey cover

May 2, 2007

One year on from the start of the controversial WorkChoices laws, the Howard Government has introduced important changes to the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).

A critical change that will affect Australia Post workers involves journey cover.

Under the changes, you will no longer have workers’ compensation coverage for journeys between home and work and during recess breaks (lunch and tea breaks) away from your workplace.

Until now Australia Post employees have been covered for injuries sustained on journeys between home and work and during lunch breaks away from the workplace.

But, typically, Australia Post has not been slow in jumping on the Howard Government’s bandwagon of stripping away rights and entitlements of workers.  Australia Post refuse to commit to continuing compensation coverage for injuries sustained on journeys between work and home and during lunch and tea breaks away from the workplace.

Importantly, during EBA7 negotiations the CEPU called on Australia Post to continue to provide cover for workers’ compensation whilst on journeys between home and work and when away from work during tea and lunch breaks.  

Australia Post has refused to address this matter in EBA7.

Clearly these changes are less about ensuring an effective workers’ compensation system and more about limiting and restricting compensation payable under the Federal Government scheme, to the detriment of workers.

Australia Post cannot hide behind the changes to the SRC Act to defend its removal of employees’ eligibility for injury claims arising from travel between home and work and during recess breaks.   It is open to Australia Post to continue cover for all of its employees for the journey between home and work and during lunch and tea breaks away from the workplace.   Australia Post’s refusal to do so is a disgrace.

Note – Workers’ compensation continues to be payable when an employee remains at work during lunch or tea breaks or leaves the workplace or home for the purposes of his or her employment or at the employer’s direction.

If you would like more information on this or any other EBA7 issue or Your Rights at Work, please contact your CEPU Branch Office on (08) 8232 5999.

Federal Government must stand up for Australian jobs

Dear CEPU member,

Our national airline Qantas is about to be sold off, and Treasurer Peter Costello refuses to guarantee that the jobs of Australian workers won't be sent offshore.

A group of local and foreign owned private equity interests have put in a bid for Qantas, which employs over 37,000 Australian staff. It is the backbone of our aviation and tourism industry.

Peter Costello said in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, "the board and the management are responsible for jobs." But the Treasurer can and must impose strict and enforceable conditions on the takeover or stop the proposed sale of Qantas.

The Howard Government needs to act to prevent aircraft maintenance services jobs going off-shore; protect airline routes and services to regional Australia; and stop Qantas customer service jobs from being sent overseas.

Don't let the Government turn its back on Australian jobs, services and standards.

Send the Treasurer an email now. www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/standupforaustralianjobs
 
Many thanks,

Greg Combet, Sharan Burrow, and
the Rights at Work campaign team

Unions to campaign against Qantas takeover bid
20/12/2006

The AMWU and other unions representing Qantas’ 37,000 workers have agreed to run a campaign targeting Qantas passengers in marginal federal electorates to stop a proposed takeover of the airline by a private consortium lead by Macquarie Bank.

The campaign will emphasise the airline’s safety record and service quality that are underpinned by Australian workers.

Acting AMWU National Secretary, Dave Oliver, said the unions have agreed to run the campaign because the takeover bid, which also includes the Texas Pacific Group, was not in the national interest and would make the loss of jobs and a decrease in safety standards more likely.

“We are extremely concerned of the likely approach Texas Pacific will take, going from their previous willingness to sack workers and send the jobs overseas.”

Oliver cited the case of Texas Pacific’s take-over of airline catering company Gate Gourmet in the UK that led to the sacking of 3000 workers. The same company took over German Grohe Water Technology and commissioned a study that recommended sending production to China and then sacked around a fifth of the workforce.

“Qantas is not just another airline. It has a pivotal role in the Australian economy, providing training and expertise that is vital in for our defence capacity and for Australian citizens during national and international emergencies.”

Oliver said that the AMWU is concerned about the capacity of the airline to keep its service and safety standards.

“Workers and the public are concerned that safety would be compromised by a takeover designed to maximise profits at the expense of services.”

“Australians do not want vital services such as maintenance performed at lower standards overseas.”

“In a Morgan Poll earlier this year 87 per cent of Australians said they wanted Qantas to keep its maintenance operations in Australia and 76 per cent said they believed Australian maintenance is of a higher standard than overseas.”

Contact Person: Dave Oliver
Contact Email: amwu2@amwu.asn.au

Qantas joint unions update and petition - December 2006

Qantas join unions update - January 2007

Qantas passenger alert