Mr BAILEY - 1996-10-15
The Industrial Relations Commission has ruled that the Country Liberal Party administration acted unlawfully in locking out Territory teachers during its bitter attack on them during the recent dispute. Will the minister immediately commence payment to all of the
Page 1690
some 12 000-odd teachers that the Country Liberal Party administration locked out unlawfully, and will the minister send a personal apology for his unlawful action along with their docked pay?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, for a start, the continued presumption underlying the member for Wanguri's question was that the commission ruled the action to be unlawful. It would be far more appropriate were he to acknowledge, as did the secretary of the union this morning, that we were procedurally incorrect. There is written in, and has been for a decade, a provision that an employer can lock out an employee under certain conditions and in certain situations.
Mr Bailey: You got it wrong. It was unlawful.
Mr FINCH: The member for Wanguri says that we got it wrong, and procedurally we did get it wrong. We did not give the appropriate period of notice, whether it was 36 hours or 72 hours or whatever the notice required is interpreted as, nor did we use the correct form. We did not stand in front of every single person ...
Mr Bailey: You are a thug!
Mr COULTER: A point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. The member for Wanguri will withdraw the remark.
Mr Coulter: How many times does he need to be told or warned?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, I withdraw unreservedly.
Mr FINCH: As I understand it, one requirement was that we stand in front of every teacher and deliver the notice individually. These are procedural matters, matters of technical interpretation of the requirements. They are not matters of principle.
What I have asked of the federal Minister for Industrial Relations is ...
Mr Bailey: That he change the law.
Mr FINCH: No, not that he change the law, but that he give some clarity of interpretation as to what the law intends. It is intended that an employer be able to lock out employees who wish to disrupt the entire day's work - in this case, of students or of other employees.
We have been asked to return that part of the deducted pay that applies to the period when teachers were at school. Of course, they will not be paid for time when they were
Page 1691
missing from school. I am sure the member for Wanguri would agree in principle with that request. Naturally, he sits there, agreeing in silence.
Mr Reed: Unaccustomed as he is to doing so.
Mr FINCH: The amount of money that the department may have to return could be in the order of $100 000. It will be paid to those individuals to whom it is due. It is not a matter of immediacy, as the member for Wanguri suggests. The lawyers acting on behalf of the union will be bringing forward the details, as required. That is what has been ordered by the commission and it will be expedited as soon as that is done.
The member for Wanguri is shaking his head. It is quite incorrect in this case. It is a matter of proper process and those teachers who have some moneys due to them will be paid. In the meantime, if the member thinks there is something wrong with the general lock-out provision in principle, then he is at odds with his former federal Labor colleagues who introduced it.
Page 1692
Page 1690
some 12 000-odd teachers that the Country Liberal Party administration locked out unlawfully, and will the minister send a personal apology for his unlawful action along with their docked pay?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, for a start, the continued presumption underlying the member for Wanguri's question was that the commission ruled the action to be unlawful. It would be far more appropriate were he to acknowledge, as did the secretary of the union this morning, that we were procedurally incorrect. There is written in, and has been for a decade, a provision that an employer can lock out an employee under certain conditions and in certain situations.
Mr Bailey: You got it wrong. It was unlawful.
Mr FINCH: The member for Wanguri says that we got it wrong, and procedurally we did get it wrong. We did not give the appropriate period of notice, whether it was 36 hours or 72 hours or whatever the notice required is interpreted as, nor did we use the correct form. We did not stand in front of every single person ...
Mr Bailey: You are a thug!
Mr COULTER: A point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. The member for Wanguri will withdraw the remark.
Mr Coulter: How many times does he need to be told or warned?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, I withdraw unreservedly.
Mr FINCH: As I understand it, one requirement was that we stand in front of every teacher and deliver the notice individually. These are procedural matters, matters of technical interpretation of the requirements. They are not matters of principle.
What I have asked of the federal Minister for Industrial Relations is ...
Mr Bailey: That he change the law.
Mr FINCH: No, not that he change the law, but that he give some clarity of interpretation as to what the law intends. It is intended that an employer be able to lock out employees who wish to disrupt the entire day's work - in this case, of students or of other employees.
We have been asked to return that part of the deducted pay that applies to the period when teachers were at school. Of course, they will not be paid for time when they were
Page 1691
missing from school. I am sure the member for Wanguri would agree in principle with that request. Naturally, he sits there, agreeing in silence.
Mr Reed: Unaccustomed as he is to doing so.
Mr FINCH: The amount of money that the department may have to return could be in the order of $100 000. It will be paid to those individuals to whom it is due. It is not a matter of immediacy, as the member for Wanguri suggests. The lawyers acting on behalf of the union will be bringing forward the details, as required. That is what has been ordered by the commission and it will be expedited as soon as that is done.
The member for Wanguri is shaking his head. It is quite incorrect in this case. It is a matter of proper process and those teachers who have some moneys due to them will be paid. In the meantime, if the member thinks there is something wrong with the general lock-out provision in principle, then he is at odds with his former federal Labor colleagues who introduced it.
Page 1692
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016