AWU going to High Court over ‘security’ for PS jobs

News

AWU going to High Court over ‘security’ for PS jobs

The battle over the loss of job security provisions for Qld public servants continues, with the AWU taking the matter to the High Court

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

The battle over the loss of job security provisions for Qld public servants continues, with the Australian Workers Union (AWU) taking the matter to the High Court.

Last year, the Newman Government stripped out job security and contracting-out clauses from industrial agreements, and removed the requirement for workers to be consulted about workplace changes.

The move made it easier, and cheaper, to sack public servants as part of the new government’s cost-cutting measures.
 
The AWU’s appeal to the High Court follows the rejection of a case in the Supreme Court on the same matter run by Together Queensland and the AWU.

Dismissed union case

A Full Bench dismissed the unions’ case with costs.

According to court documents, the AWU High Court appeal will centre on the claim that the removal of job security provisions from state public sector agreements undermines the integrity and impartiality of the Queensland IRC as a state court.

The union says this is contrary to the separation of powers principle in Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution.
 
One of the complaints from public sector unions is that following the changes the government is the beneficiary of trade-offs given in return for the job security provisions, but those provisions no longer exist.

Protests
 
The Queensland Government has sacked 14,000 public servants since being elected to office last year, but pulled back from Premier Campbell Newman’s stated intention of culling 20,000 jobs following widespread protests.

The current floods in Queensland will only add to cost pressures on the government and may result in further cuts.
 
The government has also redefined what is meant by ‘front line’ public servant positions which it had promised would not be cut — allowing for a wider scope in potential dismissals.
 
Post details