Electrical Trades Union argues retrenched workers from Inpex site owed money

THE Electrical Trades Union has argued before the Fair Work Commission that 150 workers on the Inpex site were short-changed when being made redundant

Unions NT secretary Paul Kirby at a Darwin rally against the China Australia Free Trade Agreement. Photo: LACHLAN WILLIAMS/ETU

THE Electrical Trades Union has argued before the Fair Work Commission that 150 workers on the Inpex site had been short-changed when being retrenched.

ETU NT organiser Paul Kirby said the union on Friday argued that Kentz, the major electrical subcontractor on the Inpex site, should have paid a week’s wages when retrenching workers. But Mr Kirby said the company routinely ended workers’ employment the day before employees were due for a week of rostered, unpaid leave.

The company was then able to avoid paying a week’s wages in lieu of notice, because the employees were not due to be paid during the week of leave.

Mr Kirby said the union argued before Commissioner Michelle Bissett that the practice amounted to a “loophole” used by many companies to save on redundancy costs.

“We don’t think it’s in the spirit of the agreement but (Kentz’s) position will obviously be different,” he said.

Workers on the Inpex site could be owed an estimated $300,000 if the commission ruled in their favour and Mr Kirby said a successful claim could have an impact around the country.

“This is something that happens across the oil and gas industry and across major projects generally,’’ he said.

The union estimates at least 1500 ETU members have had payouts reduced by employers using the practice.

Mr Kirby said the union expected to hear back from Ms Bissett within a fortnight and that there was a possibility the matter would be referred to the full bench of the commission.

The Fair Work Commission hearing comes less than a week after the local MUA branch was allowed back on site after management tried to keep organisers from visiting.

Mr Kirby said the unions’ relationships with employers on the Inpex site varied from “generally constructive” with some subcontractors to “downright poisonous” with others.

Kentz, JKC and Inpex representatives declined to comment on the matter.