Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, The v Svitzer Australia Pty Limited

[2013] FWC 2923

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, The
v
Svitzer Australia Pty Limited
(B2013/109)

Maritime industry
COMMISSIONER BOOTH	BRISBANE, 10 MAY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Svitzer Australia Pty Ltd .

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers (The Applicant). The Applicant seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Svitzer Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent).

[2] The Applicant has filed their submission in line with the Directions. The Respondent has provided correspondence received on 9 May 2013 advising that it does not object to the application, and the respondent does not contest the order in the terms sought by the Applicant.

[3] However the Respondent reserves its rights in relation to responding to the material provided in support of the application by the Applicant.

[4] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements in ss443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR536508] based on the draft provided by the Applicant will issue at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers and Svitzer Australia Pty Limited. The dispute centred around a proposed protected action ballot by the employees of Svitzer Australia Pty Limited. The Fair Work Commission was the court that heard the case. The main legal issue the court had to decide was whether the proposed ballot was a genuine attempt to resolve a genuine dispute or whether it was a tactic to force the employer into making concessions. The court also had to consider whether the proposed ballot was likely to cause significant economic harm to the employer and the broader industry.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles. It found that the proposed ballot was not a genuine attempt to resolve a genuine dispute but rather a tactic to force the employer into making concessions. The court also found that the proposed ballot was likely to cause significant economic harm to the employer and the broader industry. As a result, the court rejected the proposed ballot and ordered that the employees could not proceed with the industrial action.

In its decision, the court emphasised the importance of protecting the rights of employers and employees to engage in lawful industrial action while also considering the potential economic harm that such action can cause. The court also highlighted the need for parties to engage in good faith negotiations and to avoid using industrial action as a bargaining tool. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the relevant legal principles and provides guidance to employers and employees on the appropriate use of industrial action in resolving disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established