Australian Maritime Officers' Union, The v Auriga Pilots Pty Ltd T/A Auriga Pilots

[2022] FWC 2900

[2022] FWC 2900

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Maritime Officers’ Union, The
v

Auriga Pilots Pty Ltd T/A Auriga Pilots

(B2022/1528)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAKE BRISBANE, 28 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Auriga Pilots Pty Ltd T/A Auriga Pilots.

1. This is an application by the Australian Maritime Officers’ Union (001N) (the AMOU/the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Auriga Pilots Pty Ltd T/A Auriga Pilots (Auriga Pilots/the Respondent).

1. The AMOU filed the application on 7 October 2022, accompanied by a Form F34B Statutory Declaration in support of the application signed by Ms Tracey Ellis, a Senior Organiser employed by the Applicant.

1. On 7 October at 2.44pm, email correspondence was sent from Vice President Catanzariti’s Chambers asking the Respondent to indicate whether it objected or consented to the application by the CFMMEU. The parties were advised that if the Respondent objected to the application, the response was to contain details of the basis of the objection and any material upon which was relied.

1. On 10 October at 11.38am, the Respondent sent an email which indicated that the Respondent did not object to the protected action ballot order. However, it requested an amendment be made to the draft Order, proposing that the notice period for action be extended to five days pursuant to s.414(2)(b) of the Act. The Respondent outlined that the proposed extended notice period would ensure that significant operational delays and potential safety risks were appropriately mitigated. Attached to the email was a draft Order with the proposed amendment under clause 7.

1. On 12 October at 1.41pm, Vice President Catanzariti’s Chambers requested a response from the AMOU.

1. On 13 October at 9.09am, the Applicant advised they objected to an extension of the notice period for action. The Applicant stated that the circumstances outlined by the Respondent were not exceptional, nor did they justify a longer notice period. However, they advised that the Respondent provided them with a proposal for consideration that may resolve the need for protected action. The Applicant requested an extension until 19 October to provide the Commission with an answer on whether it will be pressing the protected action ballot.

1. On 14 October at 9.09am, the Vice President’s Chambers confirmed that the extension was granted.

1. On 19 October at 5.27pm, the Applicant informed the Vice President that they hoped to discontinue the protected action ballot order application. However, parties were attempting to resolve an issue behind the scenes and that it may be resolved by 21 October. The Applicant wished to provide the Vice President with an update following this.

1. On 24 October at 12.06pm, the Applicant apologised for the delay in responding to the Vice President. The Respondent had put the enterprise agreement out to ballot, and it would close on 31 October. The Applicant requested that this matter be allocated to me as it was similar to another protected action ballot order application made by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) against the same Respondent.

1. On 24 October at 2.11pm, the matter was allocated to me.

1. On 25 October at 1.52pm, the Respondent provided correspondence expressing that they no longer opposed the application nor wanted to press the five-day notice period issue. The Respondent requested that the directions issued for be vacated. Attached was a draft Order with the amended clause 7.

1. On 25 October at 2.34pm, the Applicant agreed to vacate the directions of the matter B2022/1524 and confirmed that they would await the Commission’s Decision.

1. In the circumstances and based on the correspondence from the parties, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

1. On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms Tracey Ellis of the Applicant declared on 7 October 2022, I am satisfied that the requirements of ss.443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made.

1. An order has been separately issued in PR747430.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR747431>