Unions fume as Rio Tinto shakes up 90-day sick leave policy
Unions have blasted Rio Tinto’s decision to scrap an allowance for 90 days of sick leave annually, but the miner has hit back and said its new policy is “industry leading”.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, Australian Workers Union and Mining and Energy Union have banded together to denounce Rio’s proposed sick leave policy changes.
Rio employees are set to be entitled to 12 days of sick leave each year, plus a $1,000 annual payment every December to support “wellness programs” in lieu of the 90-day allowance.
A Rio spokeswoman said the company was also offering a year of sick and carers leave at full pay if there’s a “serious illness or injury”.
“The proposed changes are designed to ensure fairness for all employees,” she said.
“This includes up to 12 months of sick and carer’s leave at full pay, including allowances, in the event of serious illness or injury, which we believe would be industry leading.
“We are currently consulting with our people about these proposed changes.”
By law, employers have to allow a minimum of 10 days sick leave each year for a full-time employee.
Changes to the policy have sparked considerable backlash from the AMWU, with State Secretary Steve McCartney saying it reinforces the group’s push for a union agreement in the Pilbara.
“It protects workers from having their wages and conditions changed on a whim,” he said on Wednesday.
“It also raises serious concerns for workers who have already had future leave approved. I call on Rio Tinto to immediately provide clarity and reassurance.”
WA’s iron ore hub has faced increased union pressure over the past 12 months. This has been led by the Western Mine Workers Alliance — a partnership between the Australian Workers Union and Mining and Energy Union.
The Alliance also piled in on the proposed sick leave changes.
“This is not a perk people rorted. It’s a policy that gave workers the confidence to show up, day in and day out, knowing they’d be supported if something went wrong,” AWU WA secretary Brad Gandy said.
“Stripping it away doesn’t just cut an entitlement, it guts trust.
“The only protection workers have from this kind of greedy corporate rug pulling is a strong, enforceable collective agreement.
“WMWA will be updating members today about the change and outlining the next steps in the fight to protect conditions at Rio.”
One of the WMWA’s flagship campaigns to re-unionise Rio’s lucrative iron ore mines hit a roadblock last month.
The union alliance had been collecting signatures at Rio’s Paraburdoo mining operations with the aim of securing a majority support determination from the Fair Work Commission.
This would force Rio to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement covering the site.
The WMWA in March touted its most significant victory of a broader unionisation crusade — proclaiming it had obtained the numbers for a majority support determination with “well over” 400 workers at Paraburdoo signing a petition for collective bargaining.
But it appears the WMWA miscounted the number of Paraburdoo employees.
“WMWA and our members understood that there were just over 800 non-management employees at the Paraburdoo operations’ four mine sites,” the union alliance stated in a social media post last month.
“Rio has submitted to the FWC they believe there are some 990 non-management roles at Paraburdoo operations 4 mine sites, which means our 450 petition signatures are not quite enough.
“The WMWA won’t give up on giving our members a real say about their pay and conditions, and we will work with Para members to ensure we get 550-plus petitions in our next application.”
Even if the WMWA fails to get the extra signatures, industrial relations laws introduced by the Albanese Government means a union can begin collective bargaining without the majority support of the workforce they represent.
About The Author
