Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The v Commonwealth of Australia (acting through and represented by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority)

[2015] FWC 4103

[2015] FWC 4103

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The
v
Commonwealth of Australia (acting through and represented by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority)
(B2015/604)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS SYDNEY, 18 JUNE 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Commonwealth of Australia (acting through and represented by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority).

[1] On 16 July 2015, The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) made an application for a protected action ballot Order in relation to a group of employees of Murray-Darling Basin Authority (Employer).

[2] The application was made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] The Employer was served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[4] The employees to be balloted are presently covered by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014 (Agreement). The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2014.

[5] On 17 June 2015, the Commission wrote to the Employer, seeking its views in relation to the application for the protection action ballot Order. In response, the Employer indicated that it did “not object to the application, but [that it] would like to make a submission in relation to the application.” Consequently, the matter was listed for hearing (by telephone) today.

[6] At the hearing APESMA was represented by Mr D Smith and the Employer was represented by Ms J Schumann. Discussion ensued about whether the proposed ballot questions provided sufficient information about the nature of the proposed industrial action. In particular the Employer expressed concern about proposed question 1, being an,

“Indefinite or periodic bans on any duty or task which requires travel beyond the location within which you ordinarily work?”

[7] Mr Smith confirmed that the intention of the question included movement between the Employer’s two physical building locations within the Canberra City area.

[8] At the conclusion of the hearing the Employer confirmed that it did not object to the Order being issued. However, Ms Schumann noted that, if the proposed industrial action is engaged in, the Employer is concerned that it might give rise to the need for it to make an application for the suspension or termination of the protected industrial action.

[9] Having regard to all that has been put before the Commission in this matter, the Commission, as presently constituted, is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[10] The Order [PR568465] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr D Smith for APESMA

Ms J Schumann for the Respondent

Hearing details:

Sydney (with a telephone link to the parties)

June, 18 2015

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR568466>