Australian Maritime Officers' Union, The v Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Teekay Marine Management

[2014] FWC 5523

[2014] FWC 5523

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Australian Maritime Officers' Union, The
v
Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Teekay Marine Management
(B2014/1035)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE SYDNEY, 13 AUGUST 2014

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

[1] On 11 August 2014, the Australian Maritime Officers’ Union (AMOU), 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 AMOU 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/AMOU Port Hedland Towage Operations Masters Fair Work Agreement 2010.

[2] The application seeks a ballot of employees of the employer who are members of AMOU and who would be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement. The application included a Statement of Robert Coombs dated 11 August 2014 (the Statement). In summary, the Statement provided information about events involving attempts made by AMOU 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 13 August 2014, at which time the following appearances were recorded:

Ms M Papa on behalf of AMOU;

No appearance on behalf of the employer.

[4] In view of the materials filed and the submissions made by AMOU 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 AMOU. Accordingly an Order [PR554237] is issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms M Papa on behalf of AMOU;

No appearance on behalf of the employer.

Hearing details:

2014.

Sydney:

August, 13.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR554236>