The Australian Services Union has lost an appeal in the Fair Work Commission against the tax office introducing hot-desking for its staff.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Secretary at Australian Services Union Tax Branch Jeff Lapidos described the decision as a "bitter disappointment".
"We believed that we had a case that deserved to win," he said.
The stoush between the Australian Taxation Office and the union that represents its workers began after the agency announced in July that it would trial hot-desking in the Docklands and Gosford offices, a plan which has been fiercely fought by the union.
The decision by FWC president Iain Ross, deputy president Abbey Beaumont and commissioner Tony Saunders upheld the original decision that found the industrial agreement between the ATO and its workers allowed the agency to introduce hot-desking.
Mr Lapidos said this decision may not be the end of the line for the dispute over hot-desking, but that the union was still trying to absorb the decision, which came down on Friday afternoon.
"We've asked our barrister to see if there are any grounds to appeal the decision to the Federal Court," he said.
"We've got an obligation to our members in the tax office to continue to examine the question."
The appeal to the fair Work Commission was undertaken both because the union didn't believe the tax office could introduce the change under the agreement, and because staff were strongly opposed to the change.
Hot-desking means that staff do not have an assigned desk, but find a new desk each day.
The union said the agency should only be allowed to force those who do fieldwork to use hot desks. The union's case rested on a section of the agreement covering tax office employees, which it believed precluded hot-desking being introduced.
"People don't like hot-desking, there's a lot of opposition to it amongst the staff," Mr Lapidos said.
The decision handed down on Friday found the ASU had permission to appeal "on the basis that it is in the public interest to clarify the objective approach which must be taken to the interpretation of enterprise agreements".
The original case brought to the Fair Work Commission also involved the Community and Public Sector Union, but only the ASU brought the appeal.
