Management prerogative explained

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v TNT Australia Pty Ltd contains the following passage
“That said, the right of the employer to manage the workplace as he/she sees fit, has always been restrained by the caveats that an employee shall not be required to comply with unlawful or unreasonable directions. Of course, the notion of what is reasonable, in any given set of circumstances, is probably the most commonly argued concept in industrial relations. It will mean different things to different people. Nevertheless, the commonly held principle is that the exercise of management prerogative will not be unreasonable, if a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the employer, would or could have made the decision.” (2013) FWC 7880.
See The Australian Workers’ Union v Alcoa World Alumina Australia Limited (2012) FWAA 9222
This decision and the other authorities referred to by DP Sams in his decision make clear the Commission should not as a matter of course get involved in “second-guessing” decisions made by Managers in the exercise of their managerial responsibilities. They continue to emphasise that the exercise of managerial prerogative should not be considered to have been exercised unreasonably if a reasonable person in the same position could have made the same decision. These authorities are acknowledged, as are the difficulties referred to already about the management of this worksite. However, notwithstanding these considerations I am satisfied the evidence in this matter does suggest some review or reflection about what has occurred is warranted.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v MSS Strategic Medical Pty Ltd and another – Re CFMEU MSS Enterprise Agreement 2012 (2015) FWC 6937 delivered 13 November 2015 per Gregory C