Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v City of Greater Geraldton
[2012] FWA 5240
•19 JUNE 2012
[2012] FWA 5240 |
|
REASONS FOR DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
City of Greater Geraldton
(B2012/870)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 19 JUNE 2012 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of City of Greater Geraldton.
[1] On 8 June 2012, the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU or the Applicant) made application to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for a Protected Action Ballot Order pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).
[2] The employees to be balloted are employed by the City of Greater Geraldton (“the Employer”) and are represented by the ASU in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement to the City of Geraldton-Greenough Combined Union Collective Agreement 2008 (“the Agreement”).
[3] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2012.
[4] The application was heard on 12 June 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that the ASU had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and an Order should issue (PR525082). These are the written reasons for issuing the Order.
[5] At the hearing, the ASU was represented by Ms K Davis, Industrial Officer. Evidence was given for the Applicant in a statutory declaration by Mr A White. Ms E Stevenson represented the Employer.
APPLICANT’S CASE
[6] Mr White declared that he was an ASU delegate on the Enterprise Agreement Negotiation Committee. Members of the ASU endorsed a log of claims and this was presented to the Employer at the bargaining meeting on 28 November 2011.
[7] The first “round” of negotiations occurred on 28, 29 and 30 November 2011. A second “round” of bargaining occurred on 13 and 14 February 2012. A further meeting occurred on 23 May 2012. The last meeting was on 7 June 2012.
[8] Subject to due diligence of a final draft document, most of the matters have been agreed except salary increases over the life of the agreement.
[9] Finally, the ASU is waiting to be informed of the Employer’s position on salary increases which is related to the term of the proposed agreement.
[10] The Applicant submitted that it has complied with the procedural requirements of the FW Act as it relates to the application and that it has been and is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer.
EMPLOYER’S SUBMISSION
[11] The Employer did not oppose the application and did not object to the submission made by the Applicant.
CONCLUSION
[12] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 440 have been met.
[13] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, submissions from the Applicant, the statutory declaration of Mr White and the Employer not opposing the application, I determined that the ASU has been and is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on these grounds I issued Order PR525082 on 12 June 2012.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms K Davis, for the Applicant.
Ms E Stevenson, for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2012:
Perth,
12 June.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR525370>
0
0
0