Qld: Unions challenge Newman dictat

The Queensland Council of Unions and public sector union Together will join forces to argue the changes, made late last month, are contrary to industrial laws.

They will also claim Public Service Commissioner Brett Heyward was unauthorised to make the directive.

QCU president John Battams said the directive, issued on July 31, wiped out legally binding agreements made between unions and the state.

"We've got very senior counsel legal advice on this and we're reasonably confident that we're on pretty sure ground," he said.

The directive effectively stripped away job security written into enterprise bargaining agreements for all but police and health workers.

The removal clauses, relating to contracting out jobs and employment security clauses, mean public sector workers who cost more than private sector labour can now be sacked with the stroke of a pen.

The changes pave the way for the Government to sack workers en masse amid cost-cutting plans to strip the state's payroll of 20,000 jobs. Mr Battams said the change also reneged on Premier Campbell Newman's pre-election promise to honour existing enterprise agreements.

"When we enter these agreements we expect, as does anyone in the business community for example, that the agreement will be honoured," he said.

"You could imagine what would happen if the union side reneged on what was in a legally enforceable enterprise agreement - the Government would scream.

"When you're the Government and the employer you're in a very unique and powerful situation, and we believe that they've misused their power."

Mr Battams admitted the legal challenge would be costly, but said it had the backing of key Queensland unions and workers.

"This Government has a huge majority and they seem to have an arrogant belief that they can do whatever they like," he said.

"As unions representing Queenslanders, we're going to make sure that we keep them honest over the next 1000 days before the state election."

Law firm Slater and Gordon will lead the challenge, with employment and industrial lawyer Andrew Rich saying the directive should be ruled invalid because Mr Heyward exceeded his powers under the Public Service Act by issuing it.