{"title":"Legal Parameters of the Employer's Duty to Consult","authors":"Giuseppe Carabetta, Paul Lorraine","doi":"10.38127/uqlj.v42i2.7805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Significant workplace change requires consultation, and standard consultation obligations exist under legislation and statutory instruments. However, those provisions offer minimal guidance on how to approach consultation. The consultation cases tend to focus on compliance, adding little beyond saying consultation needs to be meaningful. Building on the foundation laid by the 2021 decision in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd, this article considers what the parameters of the obligation to consult might — or should — be. It shows that there is an over emphasis in the authorities on timing, as a compliance trigger, rather than the substance of the obligation, and major decisions continue to show the obligation is poorly understood. It argues that clear parameters are needed on how to implement the duty to consult, and that these parameters need to come from statute or clear authority of the courts. Without restricting the inherent flexibility that is needed for consultation to work, or impeding the employer’s prerogative to make decisions, it asserts that there is a need for a deeper legal underpinning, and more active obligations, to shift the concept away from the conflictual paradigm of consultation being ‘triggered’ towards a more collaborative and productive approach.","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v42i2.7805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Significant workplace change requires consultation, and standard consultation obligations exist under legislation and statutory instruments. However, those provisions offer minimal guidance on how to approach consultation. The consultation cases tend to focus on compliance, adding little beyond saying consultation needs to be meaningful. Building on the foundation laid by the 2021 decision in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd, this article considers what the parameters of the obligation to consult might — or should — be. It shows that there is an over emphasis in the authorities on timing, as a compliance trigger, rather than the substance of the obligation, and major decisions continue to show the obligation is poorly understood. It argues that clear parameters are needed on how to implement the duty to consult, and that these parameters need to come from statute or clear authority of the courts. Without restricting the inherent flexibility that is needed for consultation to work, or impeding the employer’s prerogative to make decisions, it asserts that there is a need for a deeper legal underpinning, and more active obligations, to shift the concept away from the conflictual paradigm of consultation being ‘triggered’ towards a more collaborative and productive approach.
工作场所的重大变化需要协商,立法和法定文书规定了标准的协商义务。但是,这些规定对如何进行协商提供了最低限度的指导。咨询案例往往侧重于合规,除了说咨询需要有意义之外,几乎没有补充什么。在2021年建筑、林业、海事、矿业和能源联盟诉Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd案决定的基础上,本文考虑了咨询义务的参数可能或应该是什么。它表明,当局过分强调时间作为合规触发因素,而不是义务的实质内容,重大决定继续表明对义务的理解不足。本文认为,如何履行咨询义务需要明确的参数,这些参数需要来自成文法或法院的明确授权。在不限制协商工作所需的固有灵活性,也不妨碍雇主做出决定的特权的情况下,它断言需要更深入的法律基础和更积极的义务,将概念从“触发”协商的冲突范式转变为更具协作性和生产性的方法。