TZV CASUAL CLOTHES DECISION

Commissioner Panopoulos (formerly Commissioner Mirabella) handed down the decision on Friday, finding that TZV can direct staff to wear uniforms on week-ends.
The Commission had determined that two questions needed to be addressed. They were:

'Does the Commission have jurisdiction to hear a dispute about the days on which employees covered by the Triple Zero Victoria Operations Enterprise Agreement 2024 are required to wear uniforms?
If yes Can these employees be required to wear the uniform on weekends?'

TZV initially argued that there was no jurisdiction, but conceded that there was jurisdiction after they were required to put up their case.
This left the second question. Can these employees be required to wear the uniform on weekends?'
That may sound like a simple question, and the answer would obviously be Yes.
But the issue was more complex that it first appears. Ultimately the Commission appears to back "Management Prerogative" over the Agreement terms and history. We will be considering calls for an appeal.

TZV CASUAL CLOTHES DECISION - EXTRACTS

See the Full Decision here. Here some relevant extracts

[48] The practice in this matter is more akin to "post agreement conduct which amounts to little more than the absence of a complaint or common inadvertence is insufficient to establish a common understanding."3 The bar set out must be clear evidence, which is not apparent to me in this case.
[49] I am not persuaded by the Applicant's submissions that in this context the word 'approved', through common understanding, means weekends.4 Nor that the use of the past tense of 'approved' means something that has already happened and is immutable when they state in their submissions that 'The persons intended to be bound by the agreement would know what days have been approved. They have lived with them every day of their working life with TZV.'5 This submission effectively creates a permanent list of days that are casual clothes days. If this were the case, the Agreement would not need to use the word 'approved' but in all 2 Ibid, p 162 para 31. 3Berri, para [114]. 4 C2025/893 Digital Hearing Book, p 172 para 32. 5 Ibid, p 162 para 35. 10 [2026] FWC 24 likelihood simply refer to 'casual clothes days' and the Current CR Protocols would not include further elaboration of the understanding of when causal clothes days were to operate.
[50] Further, I am not persuaded by the submission that 'the definition of casual clothes days in the Protocols is and always was agreed between the parties.'6 The express discretion in clause 65 of the Agreement for the Respondent to amend policies, procedure and protocols (including the Current CR Protocols relating to causal clothes days) clearly allows the Respondent to make changes to such documents.
[59] The Respondent completed the consultation process,7 thus complying with the requirement in the Agreement to consult. There is nothing in the Agreement that removes their discretion to change the days and circumstances on which casual clothes may be worn. It is what the Agreement has facilitated in clause 65.2. The purpose of the changes the Respondent wants to make to the Proposed CR Protocols, is to remove the designated days for the wearing of casual clothes such as currently exists in the Current CR Protocols. The discretion to permit the wearing of casual clothes remains, albeit on an ad hoc basis for 'special occasions'.