LILYDALE CHICKEN PROCESSING PLANT

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (15:36): I rise to speak today about Lilydale Chicken workers. I rise on behalf of the workers at that plant at Wingfield to discuss a rally that took place last Friday to support them and their rights. This particular chicken processing plant at Wingfield produces some of the chickens marketed under the Lilydale free-range chicken brand that go out to supermarkets and hot chicken shops across our state.

I speak on this issue as many of my electors in Taylor work in factories and warehouses in Adelaide's north-west and deserve to have their legal rights adhered to regardless of their spoken language, nationality or newness to our great Australian nation.

This support rally was organised by the National Union of Workers' State Lead Organiser, David Garland, and his team. Also supporting and present at the rally were numerous other unions including SA Unions; the member for Hindmarsh, Steve Georganas; and Dr Joseph Masika, President of the African Communities Council of South Australia.

The list of stories coming out of this site is more concerning each day. The factory employs approximately 300 workers, and nearly all of the production workers are from a non-English-speaking background. Many of these new Australians or migrant workers speak Sudanese and Mandarin.

Allegedly in each of the sections of the factory you will find almost exclusively one ethnic grouping. Allegedly work allocation, pay rates and hours of work differentiation depend on your ethnicity. Race, allegedly, is a tool used by management to control and intimidate the workforce. Currently, alleged breaches of industrial instruments being investigated by this union include that workers report being paid less than the minimum wage in breach of clause 16 of the award.

Workers receive casual loadings of as little as 11 per cent in breach of clause 13 of the award. Workers report working up to 15 hours a day, with any overtime being paid at the base pay rate or rates below that which they should be entitled to in breach of clause 26 of the award. That is just a short list representing many other breaches that I could go on with—up to 10 to 15 points, in fact.

The stories from workers' personal experiences that are being investigated include a 43-year-old woman collapsing on the production line after an extended shift in December 2009. Allegedly management took 10 to 15 minutes to attend to her. It is also alleged by workers that she was clocked off by her manager before the ambulance arrived or possibly before it was called.

Other workers have been reported being seriously injured at work and taken to someone who is called the 'company doctor'. This doctor treats their wounds and sends them back to work without tests, X-rays or scans. The worker is then told that they are not to apply for workers compensation because they will never work in Australia again if they go to WorkCover.

Upon visiting their own doctor, against the company's direction, they are found to have serious injuries warranting further medical investigation. Workers regularly report violent verbal outbursts, often of a racist and offensive nature. It is allegedly not uncommon for workers to be poked in the back and ribs and shaken by the collar or their clothing by management, being pressured to work faster.

A very concerning story relates to a section called the 'termination site'. This area is where chickens are anaesthetised using a gas. Working in this area makes people feel ill within 15 to 20 minutes reportedly. Employees believe the company allocates workers to this area as a form of punishment for up to 1½ hours to the point that they become physically ill.

I will now outline the story of a recently sacked activist. Anyuon, who is a young Sudanese gentleman of strong character and goodwill, claims he observed a racist communication on a computer between two supervisors. He asked a manager to investigate it and presented her with evidence. She later claimed that she lost the evidence and did not recall the nature of it.

Anyuon took the matter to the state manager, who instructed him either to produce the evidence or let it go. Anyuon found the evidence and, after presenting it to management, Anyuon was brought back into a room with three senior managers, without representation, and made to sign an attendance statement, which turned out to be a blank back page of a management-constructed written statement. Oddly enough, the managers decided that the statement they had asked Anyuon to sign was not enough to fulfil their purposes, so they typed up a new draft and invited him back to another meeting.

Anyuon brought a witness to this meeting, and the whole statement (first and second draft) was disputed by him in the presence of that witness. Management determined that Anyuon did not trust the company, and they deemed it to be grounds for summary dismissal. When a union organiser became involved, they increased the charge to serious and wilful misconduct for using a computer he was not allocated to access for evidence, which they now claim was fabricated.

Staff have told union representatives that management has gathered together all work supervisors and leading hands and instructed them to make it clear to workers that there will be consequences if workers are seen talking to union officials. Since Anyuon's dismissal, the National Union of Workers has increased its presence outside the factory to pass information to workers and hold conversations about their rights at work, which every Australian is entitled to.

Time expired.