Unlawful and Unreasonable Vaccination Mandate - The FairWork Commission’s Recent Decision on BHP’s Vaccination Policy

Matilda Lloyd • Dec 09, 2021
Last week, the Fair Work Commission Full Bench handed down the much anticipated decision of CFMMEU & Matthew Howard v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd T/A Mt Arthur Coal

BHP COVID-19 Vaccination Policy 

Mt Arthur is an open cut coal mine in NSW owned by Hunter Valley Energy Coal Pty Ltd, which is a member of the BHP group of companies. The dispute between the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) and Hunter Valley Energy Coal arose when Mt Arthur announced that all workers at the Mine must be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of site entry. Under the Site Access Requirement that was announced, workers would have had to have at least a single dose of an approved COIVD-19 vaccine by 10 November 2021, and be fully vaccinated by 31 January 2022. 

The Fair Work Commission Decision

After expressing concerns about the lawfulness of the Site Access Requirement, the CFMMEU who represent 700 of the employers at the mine, made an application to the Fair Work Commission seeking a determination. The issue before the Full Bench was whether the Site Access Requirement was a “lawful and reasonable direction” in respect of employees at the Mt Arthur mine who are covered by the Mt Arthur Coal Enterprise Agreement 2019. 

The Full Bench observed that a lawful direction is one which falls within the scope of an employee’s employment and there is no obligation to obey a direction which goes beyond the nature of the work the employee has been contracted to perform. Accordingly, employees are obliged to comply with employer directions which are lawful and reasonable. The Full Bench recognised that reasonableness is a question of fact having regard to all the circumstances and the nature of the particular employment.  

To assess the lawfulness and reasonableness of the Site Access Requirement, the Full Bench considered whether Mt Arthur had an obligation under the current Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act). Under s 47(1) of the WHS Act there is an obligation on employers to consult, so far as reasonably practicable, with “workers who carry out work for the business or undertaking who are, or are likely to be, directly affected by a matter relating to work health or safety”.  

The Full Bench reached the conclusion that the Mt Arthur did not given the employees a “genuine opportunity to express their views and to raise work health and safety issues, or to contribute to the decision-making process relating to the decision to introduce the Site Access Requirement.” The Full Bench said that due to the lack of information relating to the reasons, rationale and data supporting the proposal, the engagement with employees in the assessment phase was not “consulting” as far as reasonably practicable to comply with s 47 of the WHS Act.  

Reasons for the Decision 

The Full Bench determined that the Site Access Requirement was a lawful direction because it fell within the scope of the employment and there is nothing illegal or unlawful about becoming vaccinated. However, when it came to the question of reasonableness the Full Bench determined that the Site Access Requirement was not a reasonable direction because Mt Arthur had not consulted with its employees as required by ss 47 and 48 of the WHS Act. 

The Full Bench noted that had Mt Arthur consulted the employees in accordance with its consultation obligations under the WHS Act and Enterprise Agreement, such that the Commission could be satisfied that the decision to introduce the Site Access Requirements was the outcome of a meaningful consultation process, the Site Access Requirements would have been a reasonable direction. 

What does this decision mean for other employers?

The decision provides some clarity as to the minimum expectations in relation to COVID-19 vaccination policies and directions introduced by employers. The Site Access Requirement would have been lawful and reasonable, if the consultation process had been engaged before implementation by Mt Arthur. 

BHP currently has other vaccine mandates in place across Victoria and Western Australia which will remain in place. Provided that Mt Arthur commences its consultation with the employees in a timely fashion, the Full Bench expects that Mt Arthur would be in a position to make a decision about whether to impose the Site Access Requirement at the Mine prior to 15 December 2021. 

The decision will have little impact where public health orders mandate vaccination.

Until then if you would like further information in relation to how the above matters may affect your business, please contact us on (08) 9321 5451 or by email at office@bailiwicklegal.com.au.

By Matilda Lloyd (Paralegal)

For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au/

The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
05 Mar, 2024
Find out what we have been up to and recent events in our March 2024 newsletter .
20 Feb, 2024
The Human Rights Commission may take action against employers who fail to actively eliminate sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation in the workplace, as part of a positive duty reform. While the reform itself was introduced under the Sex Discrimination Act in 2022, a change was put in place last December - and every employer, including those in the agricultural sector, is affected. This change has provided the commission with new powers to investigate and enforce compliance with positive duty and investigate organisations or businesses where it "reasonably suspects" non-compliance. What does this mean for shearing contractors, sheep producers and other primary producers? Speaking at the WA Shearing Industry Association (WASIA) general meeting last month, Bailiwick Legal solicitor Matilda Lloyd said the enforcement power involved inquiries and investigations similar to WorkSafe. She said a complaint did not have to be made for an inspector from the commission to visit and look over a workplace, and see if there is any kind of sexual harassment occurring. "The commission looks at policies and procedures, and essentially you need to be able to demonstrate that you're compliant with this positive duty. "When you think about it in the context of a shearing shed, it is the safety checklist you have in place for when people enter the shed. "Those are the things you need to consider with sexual harassment as well." Ms Lloyd said the commissioner never had the power to conduct an investigation before and, as such, practically how it was going to work was an unknown. "We don't know whether they're going to be coming out and doing regular inspections, what those inspections are going to look like in terms of time or how thorough they are going to be, " sh e said. "They need to be thought of the same way as a WorkSafe investigation, whereby it could happen at any point whether a complaint is made or not. "Investigators will expect employers to show that they are actively trying to eliminate this form of unlawful conduct." If an inquiry occurs, what will happen? If an employer wasn't taking the correct measures to stop sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation from occurring, they could be issued a compliance notice. Ms Lloyd said if the notice wasn't adhered to and an inspector returned, they could apply to the Federal Court to have that positive duty enforced. What is positive duty? Ms Lloyd said a positive duty was a legal obligation on an employer or person conducting a business or undertaking to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful behaviours in the context of work, workplaces and working relationships. In the case of shearing contractors, sheep producers and other primary producers, she said that obligation was on the employer and applied to all staff, workers, contractors, customers and people entering, for example, a shearing shed. She said the obligation was "very broad" and applied right across the board. "Enforcing positive duty is pretty straightforward in terms of the employer, but when we look at the other parties involved it is extensive, " Ms Lloyd said. "When we are talking about sexual harassment in the workplace we are talking in the shed and in a vehicle on the way to work or another shed. "It is also offsite, so if you are having work drinks at the quarters or wherever afterwards - that's also a workplace within the definitions of the act. "The obligation applies across the board in all of these circumstances. "And also applies to visitors, so if you have farmers and they bring their wives, it is anyone coming into that shed or environment." In the context of positive duty, what do contractors need to do? Firstly, employers need to understand what sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, discrimination and victimisation is. Ms Lloyd said employers were responsible for leading their team, so it was important to understand what the laws were and how they affected not only them, but their employees. "When we talk about sexual harassment we talk about unwelcome conduct that is of a sexual nature or requests for sexual favours, touching, requesting dates and so forth," she said. "Whereas sex-based harassment is harassment that is targeted at a particular sex. "This could be making sexist comments about a woman because she's a woman or making sexist comments about a man because he's a man. "Then victimisation is about targeting someone because they've made a complaint." Ms Lloyd said a conversation then needed to be had to educate employees, whether that be face-to-face, by Whatsapp or having it displayed in the shed. She said there were resources and guidelines available through the Human Rights Commission, which helped with this. "Have that conversation - as an employer understand what sexual harassment is but then talk to your employees and be serious about educating your employees, " Ms Lloyd said. "It is about actually having that conversation and then thinking about what material can be given to them. "The whole point is to make it easy, so people understand. "Then it goes into training and support - is there someone in your team people can talk to?" The seven standards The commission has released guidelines for complying with the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The guidelines are centred around seven standards - leadership, culture, knowledge, risk management, support, reporting and response, and monitoring, evaluation and transparency. Examples of practical actions that organisations or businesses can take to meet each of the standards are set out in the guidelines. Ms Lloyd said, as each business is different, it depended on how big a team was, what was going to be practical and cost-effective in the workplace. She said the commission would look at the different standards if there was an investigation or inquiry. How often do employers need to talk to their team about this? Ms Lloyd said it should be looked at similarly to safety or work related issues, whether that be a toolbox or regular meeting once a week or every couple of days. She said if a contractor was starting a new job or visiting a place they hadn't been to before, it was about having that conversation upon arrival. "When everyone's preparing for their first break, sit down and have a chat about general safety as well, " Ms Lloyd said. "That's the first step, and then follow it up a month later when you start a new shed. "It is about consistently and actively taking measures to create a safe space. "It seems obvious that once you've gone through your checklist you then talk to the people coming into that environment, who are your workers, and alert them to what you have found. "Similarly, with positive duty, a checklist is proof that you are doing the right thing if you are audited." Does insurance cover sexual discrimination cases? Having insurance does not diminish positive duty, it just safeguards employers against potential damage and loss against their business if they are sued. Ms Lloyd said sexual discrimination cases, which travelled through the Federal Court, were not cheap and often have adverse outcomes from an award of damages perspective. "If we talk about Work Health and Safety, as you know, that is a serious issue you have to take onboard and consider, " she said, "And that's the way I think employers need to frame their conduct when talking about and implementing measures to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation." Is an employer covered if they have put everything in place, but those rules are still broken? Ms Lloyd said an employer would be protected if they have been able to eliminate as much as they can with the resources available to them. She said it was important to remember sexual harassment and discrimination is unlawful conduct. "In terms of positive duty, by taking all reasonable steps and measures given the resources available to you, you will be able to mount a solid defence against any claim. "If you've done your duty positively and it can be demonstrated that you've exercised your role in appropriate fashion, then that will be solid defence." For more information on the positive duty reform and seven standards, go to humanrights.gov.au
14 Dec, 2023
See what's been happening and current topics of interest in our December 2023 newsletter .
Share by: