Originally Posted by
43Inches
SPC the workers were unanimously in favor of the mandate, so no court action would get legs seeing the company consulted the workforce first ...
It was never put to a vote so you wouldn't know whether SPC workers were unanimously in favour of it or not. There were certainly a few workers who didn't seem to be in favour interviewed for the SMH article,
SPC workers threaten to quit over vaccine mandate.
“I’ve talked to a few people, and a lot of them want to leave because of [the mandate].”
That doesn't really have the ring of unanimity to it.
Regards the company consulting the workforce first, they did not. That matter is well documented. The decision first, media second, union and workers third and fourth timing is reflected in that SMH article and in
AMWU statements.
Originally Posted by
43Inches
...BHP was dismissed on a technicality that they had lack of consultation and that the requirement was not included in workers contracts, the latter was the main sticking point that the commissioners said if altered would change the outcome.
A technicality? The Fair Work Commission Full Bench decision turned essentially exclusively on BHP's failure to consult in the manner required. Contrary to your assertion that some defect in the Employee's Contract was "the main sticking point", the Commission was clear that BHP's authority to issue the mandate was derived from the exercise of an implied contractual power to direct. The failure to properly consult was no more a technicality than driving at 70 kph in a 60 zone is "technically" speeding.
As I said, the BHP matter turned essentially exclusively on the failure to consult.
Had the Respondent consulted the Employees in accordance with its consultation obligations − such that we could have been satisfied that the decision to introduce the Site Access Requirement was the outcome of a meaningful consultation process – the above considerations would have provided a strong case in favour of a conclusion that the Site Access Requirement was a reasonable direction .
Source. Construction, Forestry, Maritime , Mining and Energy Union & Mr Matthew Howard v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd T/A Mt Arthur Coal [2021] FWCFB 6059