The ACT government has renewed a school cleaning contract to a company accused of underpaying and taking advantage of refugee workers, without waiting for the results of its own internal investigation.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The decision to extend the cleaning contract to Phillips Cleaning Services was made this month, despite the company being embroiled in Federal Court proceedings.
The United Voice union launched the case on behalf of 22 workers, alleging in court documents that some are owed almost $25,000.
The union's case also alleges that refugees from Myanmar and Thailand, who spoke little English, were signed to contracts they did not understand, and individual workers were variously paid from different business entities without explanation.
The claims of underpayment and mistreatment have been vehemently denied by the company.
The union has written to the Australian Taxation Office, urging it to investigate the company's affairs, while Education Minister Shane Rattenbury has asked his directorate to conduct its own inquiry, a process still ongoing.
Despite this, the directorate decided earlier this month to renew the company's contract for another year, along with all other contractors.
That has prompted fierce criticism from United Voice ACT secretary Lyndal Ryan, who described the decision as "unfathomable".
"I'm beyond words," Ms Ryan said.
"I don't know what [the company] would have to have done to these workers for the government to think 'we actually don't want a contract with a company that's unethical'."
Phillips Cleaning Services has strenuously denied the allegations, including any insinuation it underpaid the workers.
Spokesman Sam Cassaniti, an accountant, said on Tuesday an audit had cleared the company of any underpayment issues. He alleged the union began the dispute due to a refusal to enter into a proposed enterprise agreement.
In a statement, he said it was "somewhat surprising" that the union wanted the government to end a contract that kept workers, including union members, in employment.
"If PCS did not have the benefit of its cleaning contracts, it would have no need for labour, including union members," he said.
"It is true that PCS and the union do not have a harmonious relationship. However, PCS did not realise that the union was so actively advocating against matters affecting their own members' interests."
Mr Rattenbury said the contract renewal was the result of an "administrative decision" within the directorate.
He said the directorate's investigation of the claims and the Federal Court proceedings were ongoing, and had not found any clear breach of contract so far.
"The government remains committed to ensure that all workers have fair and safe working conditions and will use the mechanisms provided in the contract to monitor compliance with industrial relations obligations," Mr Rattenbury said.
"If there is a serious breach of contract conditions, the government is able to terminate the contract where rectification is not possible," he said.
He said cleaners were being paid in accordance with the Clean Start Union Collective Agreement 2009.
Mr Rattenbury said the contracts for all school cleaners would expire in July next year, although he said the court proceedings will be resolved by that point.
But Ms Ryan said the company was responsible for numerous delays in the court proceedings, and argued that the government should not be treating the allegations with the same standard of proof required in a court.
"It is outrageous that these workers, most of them with limited English, are being forced by the directorate to meet the same legal standard of proof as a court of law," she said.
"They have had their employment rights trashed; but because it happens out of sight it is well and truly out of the minds of the decision makers."
