Justice for Luke

December 11, 2008

Workers not “raw resources”, Jesuit tells WorkChoices protesters
CathNews
September 24, 2007

Jesuit Fr Peter Norden has told an anti-WorkChoices union rally in Melbourne that workers cannot be treated as “just another economic commodity”. The Herald-Sun reports that Fr Norden said such treatment “presents a barrier to starting a family”. “With little bargaining power, you’re forced to accept positions with lesser conditions,” he said. “How can a bloke be expected to support a family, to contribute to society, or to plan for the future?”

Background

For three years, from 2005 to 2008, Luke  has been working for Brosnan Youth Services, one of a number of programs run by Jesuit Social Services (JSS) in Melbourne, Australia. Founded 30 years ago, “Brosnan Youth Services focuses on young people aged 17-25 years who have difficultly reintegrating into the community after their sentences have been completed: those with the least support and hope.” During his tenure, Luke has worked exclusively with young men and women exiting prison, assisting them in their efforts to overcome various forms of social exclusion. He has a long history of involvement in numerous other groups dedicated to bringing about positive social change, both in Australia and overseas.

Within a year of his employment, with the aid and assistance of the Australian Services Union (ASU), Luke began a campaign to unionise his workplace. Within a short space of time, Luke was able to transform his workplace from one in which there was almost no union representation to almost 100% coverage. In addition, Luke single-handedly overhauled the Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) conditions at JSS. This effort began in 2006, and involved a WorkSafe dispute over a residential property JSS provided for exiting prisoners. This successful effort at addressing breaches of health and safety regulations not only provided better conditions for residential workers, but also the large number of young men who sought accommodation at the property.

Since then, and as a consequence of his earlier success, Luke has also succeeded in having OH&S delegates elected at all other JSS workplaces in Melbourne, and for management to allow these representatives to receive the appropriate training.

As a result of his activity, in 2008 Luke was awarded the ASU national OH&S delegate of the year award.

Threats

In early October 2008, Luke was notified that, as a result of the awarding of new Victorian Government contracts to JSS, he would have to re-apply for his job. Luke then did so.

During the period in which the interview process for his job was taking place, an OH&S issue arose at Brosnan, and in his capacity as the OH&S rep for the Brunswick office, Luke organised a meeting of staff affected by the issue; he also took notes at this meeting, and then drafted and sent a letter on behalf of staff, informing management of their responsibilities under the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004.

This letter lead to a series of heated emails from the current Program Director of the Brosnan Centre, Amanda Watkinson.

Watkinson, who had only recently been appointed to the position as manager, had prior to that point been removed from a position at RMIT University partly as a result of strange behavior exhibited toward staff in the program which she taught. The strange behavior extended to the dumping of unmarked assessments into an office rubbish bin which was discovered by cleaners and reported to management.

Amanda Watkinson

In this correspondence that followed, Watkinson disputed the legitimacy of Luke’s roles as the duly elected OH&S delegate and his role as the duly elected union delegate. Upon receiving this correspondence, Luke requested a meeting with her.

At this meeting, held on Friday October 3rd, Luke was confronted by a barrage of abuse. In addition, Watkinson stated that JSS had sought legal advice, and that a) its advice was that the OH&S meeting Luke organised was considered to be illegal industrial action and that b) JSS was considering notifying the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) of this allegedly illegal activity.

Luke understood this to mean that, should such a notification be made, he would have to appear before it; Luke also understood that Watkinson was suggesting that here he would be compelled to name those who attended the OH&S meeting.

This is something which Luke has refused to do. (Under the Workplace Relations Act, the consequences for failing to answer any question put to workers summonsed to attend is a term of six-months imprisonment.)

Watkinson also threatened Luke with other provisions of the Act if he failed to inform staff who had attended the meeting in question that as a result of their attendance they would be docked four hours pay. (Luke had made it clear that the meeting was related solely to OH&S.)

This is something which Luke also flatly refused to do.

Unknown to the delegate and other workers on site at the time of sending the letter–and something that has only very recently been made known to CFSC through an email from a now-former employee of JSS–Watkinson had employed the services of a family member in the construction of the office space. Leaving aside the fact that this was a rather dubious appointment for a publicly funded CSO to make, according to the email we received from a former staff member, the appointment was the single contributing factor to a worker narrowly avoiding serious head and neck injury due to shelving collapsing on top of the worker’s head (thus vindicating the delegate and workers’ concerns regarding OH&S; see the Crikey article below for further elaboration).

Dismissal

Shortly after his meeting with Watkinson, Luke was informed that he must submit to a second interview for his job. Following this second interview, he was again pressured to inform workers that their pay would be docked for attending a union meeting, and again threatened with the use of WorkChoices legislation.

On Friday, October 17th, Luke received his new contract. This contract stated, in part, that as a condition of his continued employment, he must agree to enrol in a course of study (a tertiary degree in human services) and to show evidence within a six-month period of this occurring, or face the termination of his contract within a five-day period. Luke was not afforded an opportunity to object to the new conditions in his contract, and immediately contacted the ASU concerning this matter. He wrote the ASU on the Tuesday following (October 21st) and received a reply on November 5th.

In the period between his receiving his new contract and his obtaining advice from the ASU, on Wednesday October 22nd, Luke spoke with the Business Support Director at JSS.

During this conversation, Luke raised a number of objections to the contract, and informed the Director that he wished to seek legal advice. His right to seek this advice was noted by the Director.

On the following day – a day he spent outside his office – Luke was sent an email informing him that he had until the end of business Friday to sign his contract. Luke read this email on Friday morning, but due to work pressures had no opportunity to object to this demand. On the same day, Luke submitted a formal complaint to the head office of JSS concerning Watkinson’s hostile behaviour.

After a cursory investigation – one in which only Watkinson and one other member of management were interviewed – Luke arranged a meeting for Thursday November 6th to discuss the complaint he had submitted and the new clause which had been added to his previous contract.

On Wednesday November 5th, Luke received several letters. One, dated November 5th, informed him that the investigation had been completed, and that the allegations he had made – which included the threats of notification to the IRC – were found to be unsubstantiated. Another letter, dated October 24th, informed him that his offer of re-employment under a new contract was being rescinded. The final letter, dated November 5th, stated that he was being dismissed immediately from his position.

Timing is everything.

Laborem exercens, Ioannes Paulus PP. II, 1981 09 14

20. Importance of Unions

All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association, that is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour or trade unions. The vital interests of the workers are to a certain extent common for all of them; at the same time however each type of work, each profession, has its own specific character which should find a particular reflection in these organizations…

Catholic social teaching does not hold that unions are no more than a reflection of the “class” structure of society and that they are a mouthpiece for a class struggle which inevitably governs social life. They are indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the just rights of working people in accordance with their individual professions. However, this struggle should be seen as a normal endeavour “for” the just good: in the present case, for the good which corresponds to the needs and merits of working people associated by profession; but it is not a struggle “against” others. Even if in controversial questions the struggle takes on a character of opposition towards others, this is because it aims at the good of social justice, not for the sake of “struggle” or in order to eliminate the opponent. It is characteristic of work that it first and foremost unites people. In this consists its social power: the power to build a community. In the final analysis, both those who work and those who manage the means of production or who own them must in some way be united in this community. In the light of this fundamental structure of all work-in the light of the fact that, in the final analysis, labour and capital are indispensable components of the process of production in any social system-it is clear that, even if it is because of their work needs that people unite to secure their rights, their union remains a constructive factor of social order and solidarity, and it is impossible to ignore it…

Jesuits, safety, unions and alleged unfair dismissal

December 10, 2008

Cam Smith in Crikey writes:

The social welfare organisation Jesuit Social Services, the number one recipient of Victorian government funding in justice service provision, is under fire from union groups following the dismissal of one of their youth workers, Luke M, the winner of the 2008 Australian Services Union Occupational Health & Safety Delegate of the Year award. The union ire stems from a potential breach of section 76 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (2004), which states that an employer is prohibited from dismissing an employee, discriminating against an employee, or treating an employee less favourably because that employee is or has been a Health/Safety representative.

According to Luke, he was dismissed after raising a potential breach of section 35 of the Act (Duty of employers to consult) relating to lack of consultation surrounding renovation of JSS’ Brosnan youth centre in Brunswick. On the 24th of September, Luke was asked by workers at Brosnan to hold an ad hoc meeting of the Brosnan worker’s OH&S committee, at which it was decided collectively to inform management of their concerns. Following this meeting, Luke raised the issue with Amanda Watkinson, Program Director at the Brosnan Centre.

Watkinson responded to McMahon’s complaint by threatening legal action against McMahon and the other workers involved through the Industrial Relations Commission, and proceeded to dock four hours pay (time in lieu) of those who had attended the meeting, which she classified as illegal industrial action. This represented the first time that the Workchoices laws – laws which prominent Jesuit priest and former head of JSS, Fr. Peter Norden actively campaigned against – had been used in the community services sector. According to minutes from a meeting held on the 12th of November, Watkinson addressed staff and claimed that if JSS did not impose the four hours TIL, the organisation would be open to fines. As such, the imposing of the TIL was considered by Watkinson to be “risk management.”

Unfortunately for Luke, all of this occurred at the same time as he was reapplying for his job. After receiving an offer of re-employment on the 17th of October, Luke noted that his new contract was identical to his previous, bar a new clause requiring him to commence a suitable tertiary course of study within six months and indicated to management that he would seek legal advice before signing. McMahon submitted a complaint on the 24th of October, claiming he had been verbally abused during his meeting with Watkinson, and that he felt he was being discriminated against as a result of his position as an elected OH&S delegate. Subsequently, in a letter dated 24th October 2008, Lisa Maddocks, the Business Support Director of JSS, withdrew the offer of employment stating, “In your email to me today you mention discrimination. On reflection we realise you are correct, in that by offering you this position, we may well have been discriminating against applicants who have met the essential criteria. Accordingly we have decided to withdraw our offer of employment.”

Julie Edwards, CEO of Jesuit Social Services, denies there is a connection between McMahon’s dismissal and his activity as an OH&S rep. In a statement released today, JSS claims that the matter has nothing to do with union issues and everything to do with a disgruntled former employee.

Edwards told Crikey that Amanda Watkinson is a staunch advocate of unions, and that upon first arriving at the organisation she had encouraged people to join, however the notes from the meeting on the 12th indicate that Amanda was previously unaware of who the OH&S or ASU delegates were at the Brosnan Centre, and she acknowledges “that she hasn’t been able to develop individual relationships with workers due to her busy schedule.”

On the issue of workers being docked pay, Edwards said, “We’ve got an email from Luke, my understanding is, setting up that meeting that they’re talking about, and he actually calls it a union meeting, and the people he invites to it are union delegates – not the staff effected by any potential OH&S issue. We would have been quite happy for that to be an OH&S meeting and for that to be the end of it, [however the staff in the meeting on the 12th] have actually decided to call it a union meeting. I don’t know the logic of that.”

McMahon denies that the union meeting he had called for in an email some weeks previous is connected to the disputed OH&S meeting which he was asked to set up by affected workers on the day. The aforementioned minutes state, “Further discussion after Amanda left the meeting related to staff feeling that although it was an OH&S meeting they should support Luke and take the four hours T.I.L. Other staff expressed they would take the TIL so that the matter could be over and done with and staff could move on.”

Lisa Darmanin, assistant branch secretary of the Australian Services Union, told Crikey that the ASU believes McMahon should be reinstated at JSS, “Luke has been an active health and safety rep and union member at the Brosnan Centre, and has advocated for the health and safety of his colleagues, and we are concerned about the situation in which Luke has been dismissed from the workplace. We have impending proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission, and we will be supporting him in every way we can.” As to whether JSS has violated section 76 of the OH&S Act, Darmanin said, “We have directed Luke to Worksafe to seek to have that matter investigated, and we are also supporting Luke in that process, and we are encouraged by Worksafe’s actions in investigating the matter.”

At a rally organised by the Justice4Luke campaign held outside JSS’ central office on Monday morning, Liz Turner from Union Solidarity told Crikey that the McMahon case is symptomatic of a rising trend amongst employers across all sectors, “With the Workchoices laws, many different types of employers are looking to imitate the more draconian workplace system we see in the building industry, where any form of industrial action on the job can be policed, and you can face all sorts of questioning and interrogation – basically what we’re seeing in Luke’s situation is that Amanda Watkinson has performed a role which is not dissimilar to the ABCC.”

McMahon claims that the action that Jesuit Social Services has taken in his case is representative of a generally blasé attitude within JSS management towards the issue of workplace safety. “[When I arrived at JSS] the organisation’s OH&S policy hasn’t been updated in about 13 years, and of the 15 members of the organisational Occupational Health & Safety committee, 10 hadn’t been working for the organisation for over two years, and one had been dead for over three years. This is a high risk occupation – we shouldn’t have to break out the ouija board to deal with safety issues.”

Since McMahon’s dismissal, there has been at least one alleged OH&S incident at the Brosnan centre, in which brackets installed during the renovations partially dislodged, causing shelving to collapse on a worker’s head.

 

Food for thought

December 9, 2008

Maintaining the rage against WorkChoices, Tim Battin, Eureka Street, May 01, 2008

These were important (and repugnant) aspects of WorkChoices, but they were not its driving force. The philosophical mainstay of the Coalition’s attack was its comprehensive undermining of union collective action.

WorkChoices made Australia the world’s only western democracy where employers faced a fine if they made agreements that allowed union officials into a work site. Similar provisions, such as union training, were to be prohibited content; in Howard’s Australia, employees or unionists could be fined for even asking for such a provision…

One major voice of opposition outside the unions was the Catholic Church. Drawing on Catholic social teaching, church organisations were able to point to numerous ways in which the legislation offended Catholic social justice principles. To the extent that WorkChoices shifted bargaining power further to employers, prevented or thwarted workers’ collective action, or removed the authority of the independent Commission, it was clear that Catholic social teaching was violated…

Catholic social thought defies this fashion — not only in a straightforward sense of upholding specific principles such as the primacy of labour over capital, or that unions, far from being ‘third parties’ in the employment relationship, are the legitimate representatives of workers, but in a fundamental and general sense insofar as Catholic social thought is grounded in a rich tradition that does not blow with the latest wind…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.