A union leader at Appin Colliery could be facing the sack, according to the CFMEU, over his role in the mine’s recent early morning undie protest.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Designed to highlight Illawarra Coal’s refusal to provide replacement work clothes and a laundry service for the miners, as mandated by their work agreements, the protest involved day-shift miners turning up to work in early March without their pants.
The miners’ union said District Lodge President Dave McLachlan had been stood down for three weeks after the 10-minute industrial action, and has now been asked to “show cause” why he shouldn’t have his employment terminated.
CFMEU NSW South West Vice-President Bob Timbs called on the senior leadership team of South 32 to intervene the “gross over-reaction”, saying the company had launched a process of singling Mr McLachlan out for standing up for his rights at work.
“Dave has an impeccable workplace record and has been instrumental in helping maintain one of the most productive and settled workforces in the NSW coal industry,” Mr Timbs said.
“The time and resources spent by the company in pursuit of revenge to a 10-minute delay simply doesn’t make sense.”
“It’s absurd. The company is legally bound under its registered agreement to provide fresh work clothes and an industrial laundry service to workers and the fact it hasn’t shows utter contempt for its employees at Appin.
“Dave’s role as Lodge President is one of the reasons why this colliery has a proud industrial record,” said Mr Timbs.
CFMEU National President Tony Maher joined the union’s push to call out mine bosses, saying Mr McLachlan had “an umblemished record”.
“He is a family man with two kids and a grandchild,” Mr Maher said.
“As Lodge President, Dave has represented members at Appin with distinction for the past ten years so much so that the mine has not lost an hour in industrial action for years at Appin.”
“To single out, punish and threaten the livelihood of a model worker for leading a short protest against the company’s refusal to meet its legal obligation is a preposterous over-reaction.”
Approached by the Mercury on Tuesday, a South32 spokesman said the protest “was deemed as unprotected industrial action” and said the company had taken action in accordance with the Fair Work Act.
“An investigation has also taken place into the manner in which the unprotected industrial action occurred and the conduct of some employees involved,” the spokesman said.
“This investigation has been finalised and the findings have been discussed in confidence with those employees and their union representatives.”