Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Australian Synchrotron Company Limited

[2012] FWA 10580

[2012] FWA 10580

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
v
Australian Synchrotron Company Limited
(B2012/2076)

and
Community and Public Sector Union
v
Australian Synchrotron Company Limited

(B2012/2079)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 17 DECEMBER 2012

Application for a protected ballot by employees of Australian Synchrotron Limited and Synchrotron Light Source Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] On 4 December 2012, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia (APESMA) and the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) (collectively “the Applicants”) made application to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for protected action ballot orders pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).

[2] The employees to be balloted are employed by the Australian Synchrotron Company Limited, and from on or about 1 January 2013, the Synchrotron Light Source Australia Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and are represented by the Applicants as bargaining representative in the bargaining for the Australian Synchrotron Employee Collective Agreement 2012 (“proposed Agreement”).

[3] The nominal expiry date for the existing Australian Synchrotron Employee Agreement 2008 and the Australian Synchrotron Employee Agreement 2010 is 30 June 20112.

[4] The applications were heard on 11 December 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that the Applicants had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and Orders should issue (PR532236 and PR532238 respectively). These are the written reasons for issuing the Orders.

[5] At the hearing, APESMA was represented by Ms S Herrington, Senior Industrial Officer. Evidence was given for APESMA by Mr L Rees, Union Organiser. Mr K Barlow, Legal Officer represented the CPSU and Mr Girdler, Lead Organiser gave evidence for the CPSU.

[6] For reasons detailed below, the Employer was not required to attend the hearing.

[7] Mr Rees and Mr Girdler separately gave evidence that since 1 September 2012, the Applicants have been engaged in bargaining for the proposed Agreement.

[8] The Employer was presented with a log of claims which had been endorsed by the CPSU membership.

[9] Four meetings have occurred and a further meeting is scheduled for 19 December 2012.

[10] Evidence was given that, in bargaining, the bargaining representatives have given consideration and responded to the respective claims. The CPSU gave evidence that they have made concessions.

[11] Despite the parties genuinely trying to reach agreement, resolution of differences remain.

[12] By email, Dr G Borg, Chief Operating Officer for the Employer advised the Tribunal that it did not object to the applications, is committed to successfully negotiating a replacement enterprise agreement and will continue to maintain good faith bargaining. In the circumstances, the Employer was not required to attend the hearing.

CONCLUSION

[13] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 448 of the FW Act have been met.

[14] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, the submission of the Applicants, evidence and the Employer’s position in not objecting to the applications, I determined that the Applicants have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on these grounds, I issued Orders PR532236 and PR532238 on 11 December 2012.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

S Herrington, for APESMA.

K Barlow, for the CPSU.

No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2012:

Perth, Melbourne and Sydney (video hearing)

11 December.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR532420>