ABSTRACT

The closures and restrictions imposed at workplaces around Australia in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have raised unprecedented issues for trade unions seeking to exercise rights of entry in accordance with Part 3–4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Section 491 requires that union officials seeking to exercise a statutory right of entry comply with any ‘reasonable request’ by an occupier about an occupational health and safety (OHS) requirement that applies to the premises. This had led to disputes about the appropriateness of requirements imposed by employers to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection and transmission. This paper will discuss three recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions which consider the reasonableness of requests limiting entry to premises in this context. Although the cases had different outcomes, the FWC’s findings demonstrate how an employer’s OHS obligations relating to COVID-19 will be weighed against the objects of Part 3–4. Overall the FWC has taken a practical and nuanced approach to such disputes, and expected some cooperation between employers and unions. The limited scope of these decisions does, however, leave some questions relating to rights of entry during the pandemic unanswered.

摘要

为应对 COVID-19 大流行而在澳大利亚各地的工作场所实施的关闭和限制给寻求根据《2009 年公平工作法》（联邦）第 3-4 部分行使进入权的工会带来了前所未有的问题。第 491 节要求寻求行使法定进入权的工会官员遵守占用者关于适用于场所的职业健康和安全 (OHS) 要求的任何“合理请求”。这导致了关于雇主为减轻 COVID-19 感染和传播风险而施加的要求是否适当的争议。本文将讨论公平工作委员会 (FWC) 最近的三项决定，这些决定考虑了在这种情况下限制进入场所的请求的合理性。虽然案件的结果各不相同，FWC 的调查结果表明，将如何根据第 3-4 部分的目标权衡雇主与 COVID-19 相关的 OHS 义务。总的来说，FWC 对此类纠纷采取了务实而细致的方法，并期望雇主和工会之间进行一些合作。然而，这些决定的范围有限，确实留下了一些与大流行期间入境权有关的问题没有得到解答。