Glencore's Shifty Cuts

WAMBO BARGAINING UPDATE: MON 11 MAY

YOUR PABO HAS BEEN FILED

Following the unanimous support shown in lodge meetings, the union has now formally filed for a Protected Action Ballot Order (PABO) at Wambo.

This is an important step forward in our campaign for a fair agreement.

The ballot will be conducted online, and when voting opens the message from the lodge is simple:

VOTE YES TO EVERYTHING.

A strong YES vote sends a clear message to management that workers are united, organised and prepared to stand together for a fair outcome.

A YES vote means that workers keep our options open and increase pressure on the company to move at the bargaining table.

The ballot itself is leverage. The stronger the result, the stronger our position.

Wambo is the first site moving to this stage and we need a strong showing from every part of the workforce. Management will be watching these numbers closely.

Now is the time to:

  • Talk to your workmates
  • Make sure everyone understands what is at stake
  • Encourage everyone to participate in the vote
  • Direct any questions to your lodge delegates

The union has also prepared a leaflet explaining the issues and how a PABO works. Please share it widely across crews and with anyone who has questions about the process.

We know management will continue trying to downplay concerns around the proposed tiered structure and progression system. But members at Wambo have already made the position clear: We are not interested in agreements that hand management control over progression, create uncertainty around pay pathways or put downward pressure on wages over time.

Members have also been raising another issue in meetings and conversations, particularly from one part of site. We want to address it directly:

Management has increasingly tried to justify the proposed lowest tier in their structure by pointing to a group of labour hire workers currently receiving higher rates through a Same Job Same Pay order at Wambo.

The lowest tier Glencore wants inserted into the agreement is effectively a “mining support worker” classification at around $34 an hour with no bonus.

The union’s concern is simple: once a lower tier like this exists in the agreement, there are limited protections stopping workers across site being pushed back onto it over time and it will drag down wages.

Wambo Management is trying to argue this tier is needed because some labour hire workers are currently earning more than the company believes their current duties justify under the EA structure.

Those rates are the result of Glencore’s own labour hire model being challenged and partially undone.

The Fair Work Commission determined those workers should receive lifted rates because Glencore’s labour hire arrangements undercut site standards. Whether you agree with the exact outcome or not, that situation exists because Glencore created a labour hire system that was found to be unfair.

Now management is using those colleagues of yours as a wedge, to try to get you to accept an unfair tiered structure with broader consequences than just that cohort. If addressing the pay of these workers was their real motivation, then why are they proposing the same structure at Ravensworth and Mangoola where this issue does not exist?

You are effectively being asked to insert a risky lower-paid structure into your agreement – with no protections against how it might undermine your wages and wages across the industry – to help Glencore solve a problem created by Glencore.

The union has repeatedly put fair alternatives to the company, including direct employment models and properly structured classifications with progression protections and safeguards.

Glencore refused.

That tells you this is not really about resolving one isolated issue.

It is about using a situation created by their labour hire arrangements as a convenient opportunity to try to get you to turn on your fellow workers and vote against your own interests.

And remember: at Mangoola and Ravensworth these same circumstances do not exist yet Glencore is still pursuing the same tiered structure approach there as well.

This is a broader strategy.

Workers should not do management’s dirty work for them. Next time they bring it up consider asking them why they won’t directly employ these people so that they can have a say.

Stay united.
Talk to your crew.
Vote YES TO EVERYTHING ON THE PABO.

WAMBO BARGAINING UPDATE: FRI 24 APRIL

Over the last round of lodge meetings and management presentations, workers at Wambo didn’t hold back. You took the proposal that management put forward and made it clear that it isn’t good enough.

We heard it across crews.

The biggest issue remains the same. The proposal introduces three tiers, the lowest of which has no bonus, with progression controlled by management rather than based on time or experience. It is not something you move through automatically, and it is not fair.

What is the point of an EA if we are not actually negotiating people’s pay?

What management heard loud and clear in those meetings is that people understand exactly what this is, and they are not buying it. After their presentations management were reportedly speaking with members individually and urging them to think only of themselves. Members were overheard responding that we are a union and we stick together. 

The overall message from Wambo is straightforward. This proposal does not meet the mark.

We now move to a PABO. 
This step was unanimously supported in lodge meetings.

Stay united. More updates to come.         

WAMBO BARGAINING UPDATE: MANAGEMENT PUSHING “SHIFTY CUTS”

At the last round of meetings, we told you that management wanted to rush this agreement to a vote but that they had stepped back when we made it clear that we would not support an agreement that undermined wages here at Wambo, through an unfair tiered structure.

At that point, Members were also clear on the direction forward:

There would be no support for an agreement unless:

  • No tiers, or
  • At worst, a satisfactory structure where no one goes backwards

Since then, we’ve had further meetings and debated that position with management.

Management’s proposal breaches the guardrails set by members and introduces inequities that don’t exist today and shouldn’t be written into this agreement.

What’s in the updated proposal?

Tiered pay structure that cuts standards

  • New lower tiers that would lock in cheaper labour hire rates
  • This is about getting around Same Job Same Pay laws and keeping the labour hire rort open to undercut wages
  • Once those lower rates exist on paper, they become the benchmark that applies to those workers reducing their current annual wage by 24% or around $38,000 per year.  

Refusal to fix Rostering

At this stage management have said that they’ll only change the roster system if we support the other unfair elements of this agreement. Which we are obviously NOT prepared to do.

Refusal to agree to back dating and back paying the Agreement

The Company refuses to back pay any wage increases and continues to maintain that we go another full year from reaching agreement before seeing further increases.

Changes to conditions that members do not want

  • Move to fortnightly pay
  • Single crib on day shift

Members would have seen what happened at Mangoola last week. Members there voted the agreement down 93%.

Why? Because of the same issues – unfair tiers – plus key items Members care about left out.

What’s Next

At last week’s meeting, management made clear that their next step is to come and talk directly to you. This will be where they test whether they can get this deal over the line or not.

Expect to hear: “We want to give you a pay rise but the MEU won’t let us”

Let’s be very clear, this is about:

  • Stopping a race to the bottom
  • Protecting your agreement from being the thin edge of the wedge

We left this meeting with a clear understanding that: They will try to go around your delegates and sell this directly to you. We need to be just as clear in response and this where YOU come in:

What you should be asking management at these meetings

  • Is the introduction of lower pay tiers about avoiding payment under the Same Job Same Pay laws?
  • Why can’t progression between their proposed tiers be on the basis of time at the pit rather than skills? Wouldn’t this be fairer and more immune to favouritism etc?
  • The Valley moved to a flat pay structure years ago, why do they want to move back?
  • Why is the Company holding this over our head to give us a pay rise and a roster change for those that want it?
  • Will the Company guarantee to employ people on the lower pay rates? Why is the Company so focused on the pay rates of others outside of our agreement?
  • Why won’t the Company pay backpay?

Next Steps: Lodge Meetings

We need strong attendance to:

  • Confirm our position on tiers given these new details
  • Vote on a potential Protected Action Ballot Order Application
  • Lock in our approach going forward

Location: GCOM Room

PRODUCTION

  • Crew 1: 22nd April – 6:00pm
  • Crew 2: 21st April – 7:15pm
  • Crew 3: 22nd April – 7:15pm
  • Crew 4: 21st April – 6:00pm

MAINTENANCE

  • Crew 1: 22nd April – 5:15pm
  • Crew 2: 21st April – 6:15pm
  • Crew 3: 22nd April – 6:15pm
  • Crew 4: 21st April – 5:15pm

Their proposed agreement requires trade-offs that are NOT ACCEPTABLE. It’s a fundamental structural cut dressed up as a deal.