Historic case for outworkers' rights The following article was published in "The Guardian", newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday, May 10th, 2000. Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills. Sydney. 2010 Australia. Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795. CPA Central Committee: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "The Guardian": <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Webpage: http://www.cpa.org.au> Subscription rates on request. ****************************** The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union (TCFU) has begun Federal Court proceedings against several clothing companies on behalf of eight Victorian outworkers. The claim is for the payment of award entitlements for the outworkers who have been employed for periods ranging from six weeks to 21 years. This is an historic test case, the first time in Australia and perhaps the world, that outworkers will claim their legal award entitlements. by Magda Hansson The companies involved include AKF Clothing, Glenda Clothing, Cupid Bridalwear, Ebony Lace, Blue Calix and Pelaco. Pelaco is not a direct employer of these workers but is supplied with clothing manufactured by them through the other suppliers. Since the Kennett Government abolished all state awards in 1992 outworkers have been covered by a Federal award. In the state awards of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, outworkers are classed as employees and entitled to annual leave, public holidays, superannuation, overtime and other protections from extreme exploitation. However, unscrupulous employers will go to great lengths to set up sham arrangements to avoid their responsibilities to their workers. In the case of outworkers, employers usually advertise in the ethnic press and require interviewees to demonstrate their sewing skills in their factories. If satisfied with the demonstration, the worker will then be required to take out a business registration, which is usually described as a "licence". The employers set all the conditions and pace of work. Workers have got no control over how much work they do, when they do it, how much they are paid for it, if at all. In order to meet the unrealistic times set to complete the work family members, including children, are often engaged to meet these deadlines at no cost to the employers. One worker in the test case was paid $3.50 per hour for work done in the factory and her home and two other workers have not been paid at all for their work. One of the workers for Blue Calix and their family had to move house because of fears of retribution for the temerity of asking for their wages. This resulted in further financial hardship. In a week where the minimum wage has just risen to $400.40 per week these most vulnerable workers are receiving nothing like that. The TCFU is challenging the premise that these outworkers are contractors simply because employers call them contractors. The outworkers want the protection of the award and to be correctly classified as employees. An alternative argument is for the court to find them independent contractors but entitled to fair contracts and the same entitlements as other employees. The union is very optimistic that it will achieve pay justice. -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
LL:ART: HISTORIC CASE FOR OUTWORKERS' RIGHTS
Communist Party of Australia Wed, 10 May 2000 04:12:44 -0700
