‘No ticket, no start’ policy costs firm $7500

Cases

‘No ticket, no start’ policy costs firm $7500

A national labour-hire company, which says it adopted a ‘no-ticket, no-start’ policy in Western Australia ‘to keep industrial peace’, has been fined $7500 by the Federal Court.

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

A national labour-hire company, which says it adopted a ‘no-ticket, no-start’ policy in Western Australia ‘to keep industrial peace’, has been fined $7500 by the Federal Court.
 
 
Justice John Gilmour found the company’s conduct displayed ‘complete disregard’ for both the law and individual rights.

He imposed the penalty against Offshore Marine Services (OMS) Pty Ltd following an investigation and prosecution by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman initiated legal action against both OMS and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), but after OMS signed an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting its contraventions, the Federal Court is hearing the case in two parts.

The MUA is defending the proceedings, which have yet to be tried. A directions hearing is listed for 20 September.

OMS supplies staff to work on offshore vessels in the oil and gas industry.

Discrimination
 
Justice Gilmour found OMS breached workplace law by requiring that membership of the MUA was a prerequisite for employment — and that a married Perth couple who were refused employment in 2009 because they were not MUA members had been ‘discriminated against and treated unfairly’.

It is unlawful under freedom of association provisions of the Fair Work Act for an employer to refuse to employ a person because they are not a member of a union.

In his written judgment, Justice Gilmour said:
‘The (couple) were denied employment as a result of the refusal of OMS to employ them because they were not members of the MUA.’
Justice Gilmour found that:
‘OMS accepts that its conduct was deliberate in the sense that it consciously had a practice of only employing members of the MUA.’
‘Industrial peace’
 
‘The respondent (OMS) submits that there is no suggestion that the practice was designed for the purpose of breaching the law, but rather it was a practice designed to keep industrial peace.’

‘I give this submission no weight. The means of maintaining its stated object of industrial peace was to deliberately breach the law.’

‘I find that the conduct of OMS, in effect, displayed a complete disregard towards the freedom of association provisions and protections contained in Commonwealth employment laws, as well as a complete disregard for the individual rights of the (couple).’

‘OMS is a “large sized” successful and well-resourced business having dedicated human resources staff. It was clearly able to obtain competent legal advice about its obligations as an employer under Commonwealth laws and the importance of compliance.’

Justice Gilmour said a financial penalty was required to ensure ‘general deterrence’ and ordered that the fine of $7500 be paid by OMS within 30 days. 

Fair Work Ombudsman v Offshore Marine Services Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 498 (17 May 2012)
Post details