Liverpool Council’s workforce dispute has escalated to the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, with the United Services Union taking action against Mayor Ned Mannoun over allegations of bullying and intimidation affecting council workers.
The matter was listed before the Industrial Relations Commission on Thursday, 14 May, as NSW Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union, trading as United Services Union, v Mr Nader (Ned) Mannoun, Mayor of Liverpool City Council.
The official court list records the matter as case number 2026/00182052, listed at 11.15am as a compulsory conference before Commissioner J Webster.
A compulsory conference is not a final ruling, and Local Pulse has not located any published decision or orders arising from the listing.
Union alleges “industrial scale” bullying
Australian Associated Press has reported that the USU filed an application for a stop-bullying order in the Commission, alleging “industrial scale” bullying and intimidation of Liverpool Council workers.
AAP reported the union claims around 600 council employees have been left fearful for their safety and livelihoods by repeated public threats of sackings and ongoing instability.
The allegations have not been tested by the Commission.
The USU has described the action as unprecedented, with AAP reporting the union believes it is the first time a sitting mayor has been accused of bullying an entire workforce, rather than individual workers.
Budget dispute forms part of the background
The IRC action follows a turbulent week at Liverpool City Council, where councillors considered a controversial budget proposal that sparked staff and union concern about possible job losses, outsourcing and impacts on council services.
A key issue is the difference between the earlier confidential proposal that prompted those concerns, the staff-prepared budget position, and the substantially different motion ultimately passed in open session.
Material sighted by Local Pulse indicates an attachment referred to as Attachment A formed the basis of the original confidential budget proposal circulated before the extraordinary meeting.
That material was not the motion ultimately passed by Council.
What Attachment A showed
Attachment A set out proposed budget adjustments across several council directorates.
Some entries proposed reducing employee costs by specific percentages, while others were expressed as dollar figures, removal of initiatives, reallocations, or changes to non-employee expenses.
The document included proposed employee-cost reductions across several council areas, including reductions of 7%, 10% and 15% in some sections.
However, it did not show a uniform 7% to 15% staffing reduction across Council. Some proposed reductions were listed at 20%, one budget line referred to a 100% reduction in employee costs, and some entries were expressed as dollar figures rather than percentages.
The document referred to employee costs, not confirmed staff numbers.
Local Pulse has not independently verified how those proposed employee-cost reductions would have translated into actual job losses, vacancies, service changes, redeployments or outsourcing if the earlier proposal had proceeded.
Final motion was not the original proposal
The earlier confidential proposal did not pass.
After a motion to move the budget debate into closed session was defeated, councillors continued in open session and passed a materially different motion.
The final motion, supplied to Local Pulse by Council, directed the CEO to model proposed changes for the next council meeting.
Those proposed changes included employee costs of $114,598,373 for the 2026/27 budget. The motion described that figure as a 7.25% increase in Council’s wage bill between 2025/26 and 2026/27.
However, Deputy Mayor Peter Harle has also pointed out that the $114 million figure was lower than the staff-prepared position referenced in the same motion.
The final motion called for scenario analysis comparing employee costs of $116,971,210 with $114,598,373.
On that basis, the final motion can be read in two ways. It represented an increase on the current year’s wage bill, but a decrease compared with the higher staff-prepared 2026/27 employee-cost position.
The motion also called for the modelling to include the filling of 26 vacancies across the Operations Directorate.
Harte rejects job-cut claim
Councillor Matthew Harte, who moved the final motion ultimately passed by Council, has rejected the USU’s job-cut framing.
Cr Harte provided a longer statement to Local Pulse. The key points relevant to this article are summarised below.
In this previous statement to Local Pulse, Cr Harte said Council had unanimously supported his motion to model a 7.25% increase in Council’s wage bill, from about $106 million in 2025/26 to about $114.9 million in 2026/27.
He said the wage bill was increasing “in real and nominal terms” under the modelling requested.
Cr Harte also rejected the union’s claim that jobs were at risk.
“There was no evidence to support 140 job cuts as a result of the budget proposals put forward by Councillor Macnaught and myself,” Cr Harte said.
He said Council needed to be financially responsible, arguing that any disproportionate wage-bill increase would affect Council’s ability to deliver basic services and service debt linked to Liverpool Civic Place.
Cr Harte also defended his support for considering the matter in closed session, saying the documentation remained confidential in nature and that closed session was intended to protect staff from being individually or indirectly identified.
Deputy Mayor says budget issues should stay public
Speaking on The Pulse on Thursday morning, Deputy Mayor Peter Harle said his comments were made in a personal capacity, but he believed that budget issues should be dealt with publicly.
“Budget issues should be debated in open council,” Cr Harle said.
Cr Harle also said he had concerns about the original motion that had prompted public and union concern.
“I didn’t believe that the original motion was legal,” he said.
He said he had suggested the original motion “should not have been put up” and “should have been discounted completely”.
Cr Harle said the earlier wording had contributed to staff concern.
“It implied that there were going to be staff cuts,” Cr Harle said.
USU claims jobs were saved
The USU has since claimed the outcome of the extraordinary meeting as a win for council workers.
In a public post on 13 May, the union said members had helped “save approximately 140 jobs” and that Council had “backflipped” on proposed job cuts.
The union also said the passed motion would increase employee costs by 7.25% to $114.5 million and fill 26 vacant positions.
That is the union’s characterisation of the outcome. Cr Harte has rejected the job-cut framing, and Council has not publicly accepted the USU’s description of the result as a “backflip”.
The competing figures mean the final motion sits between two positions: it moved away from the earlier confidential proposal that alarmed staff and the union, but it was also below the higher staff-prepared employee-cost figure referenced in the final motion.
Donley says workers remain concerned
Speaking separately on The Pulse, USU organiser Steve Donley said the union saw the latest dispute as part of a longer-running concern over job security at Liverpool Council.
“We’re back at the same place we were two years ago where 140, 150 staff had their jobs on the line,” Mr Donley said.
Mr Donley also said the union’s concerns were based on the earlier proposal.
“There wasn’t an area in the council that wasn’t taking anywhere between a 7% to a 15% reduction in staff,” he said.
Material sighted by Local Pulse supports the broader point that employee-cost reductions were proposed across multiple council areas in the earlier Attachment A material.
However, Local Pulse has not verified Mr Donley’s statement as a precise description of every council area. Attachment A referred to employee costs rather than confirmed staff numbers, and some proposed reductions were outside the 7% to 15% range.
Survey material points to staff concern
The USU has also referred to survey material it says reflects serious concern among Liverpool Council workers.
Survey figures were circulated on Facebook by a third party, but Mr Donley confirmed the substance of those figures during his interview on The Pulse.
Because the survey material was union-supplied and has not been independently verified by Local Pulse, it should be treated as an indication of concerns reported to the USU, rather than as an independent or statistically representative survey of the entire council workforce.
AAP also reported that a USU survey of union employees found more than half of respondents had considered leaving the council as a result of the conduct of the mayor and councillors.
Local Pulse has asked the USU to provide further detail about the survey, including the number of respondents, when it was conducted, the exact questions asked, and whether respondents were council employees, USU members, or both.
Wider workplace culture dispute
The USU has framed the IRC matter as part of a broader dispute over workplace culture and the treatment of council staff.
AAP reported that the union’s application centres partly on public comments made by Mr Mannoun, including a Facebook video in April that the union alleges portrayed council union members as racist and a threat to the community.
Those allegations have not been tested by the Commission.
Responses sought
Local Pulse has sought comment from Mayor Ned Mannoun, Liverpool City Council and the United Services Union regarding the IRC matter, the union’s allegations, the status of the 14 May compulsory conference, and the competing claims about whether jobs were at risk before the revised budget motion was passed.
Local Pulse has also asked the USU to confirm whether any orders, undertakings, directions, adjournment or further listing dates arose from the compulsory conference.
Those enquiries were sent on Saturday. This story will be updated if responses are received.
The dispute comes as Liverpool City Council awaits the final report from the public inquiry into the council, which examined governance, leadership instability, councillor conduct and the working relationship between elected officials and senior staff.
For council workers, the latest developments mean the budget fight may have shifted, but the broader workplace dispute is not over.
The key question now is whether the revised budget motion has settled immediate job-security concerns, or whether further modelling and future budget decisions could place workers, services or council operations under renewed pressure.
