Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, The v Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 5486

[2014] FWC 5486

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 12 August 2014.

“The numbering of the paragraphs has been altered so that it is now in sequential order. The fourth paragraph, previously numbered as 1 is now numbered [4]. The fifth paragraph, previously numbered as 2 is now numbered [5]. The sixth paragraph, previously numbered as 3 is numbered [6] and the final paragraph, previously numbered as 4 is now numbered [7]”

Mark Evans

Relief Associate to Commissioner Cambridge

Dated 13 August 2014

[2014] FWC 5486

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
Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2014/1033)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE SYDNEY, 12 AUGUST 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[1] On 8 August 2014, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers (AIMPE), made an application for a protected action ballot order. The application was made pursuant to section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in respect of members of AIMPE who are employees of Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd (the employer) whose employment is to be regulated by the proposed agreement to replace the Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd AIMPE Port Hedland Towage Operations Engineers Fair Work Agreement 2010.

[2] The application seeks a ballot of employees of the employer who are members of AIMPE and who would be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement. The application included a Statement of Greg Yates dated 11 August 2014 (the Statement). In summary, the Statement provided information about events involving attempts made by AIMPE to reach agreement with the employer on the terms of a proposed enterprise agreement.

[3] The application was listed for Hearing before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 12 August 2014, at which time the following appearances were recorded:

Mr M Burns, solicitor with Mr G Yates on behalf of AIMPE;

No appearance on behalf of the employer.

[4] In view of the materials filed and the submissions made by AIMPE during the Hearing, the Commission provided an extemporary determination of the application and this Decision is issued as confirmation of that determination.

[5] The determination of this matter is primarily governed by the provisions of section 443 of the Act. Section 443 is in the following terms:

“443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[6] In this instance I am satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with section 437 of the Act. In particular, I am satisfied that the applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. In addition, I am satisfied that the requirements of sections 438 and 440 of the Act have also been met.

[7] Therefore, pursuant to subsection 443(1) of the Act, the Commission must make the protected action ballot order sought by the AIMPE. Accordingly an Order [PR554185] is issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr M Burns, solicitor with Mr G Yates on behalf of AIMPE;

No appearance on behalf of the employer.

Hearing details:

2014.

Sydney:

August, 12.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR554184>