"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Ltd

[2011] FWA 8383

[2011] FWA 8383

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

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

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Ltd
(B2011/4009)

COMMISSIONER BOOTH BRISBANE, 2 DECEMBER 2011

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Ltd.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) (the Applicant). The Applicant seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The AMWU has filed their submission in line with the Directions. The Respondent has provided correspondence received on 30 November 2011 advising that it does not object to the application, and advised that there are some errors in the application.

[3] The Respondent stated:-

● the Application incorrectly identifies the employer’s industry as “Electrical and mechanical contracting”. Rather, the employer’s industry is “manufacturing and associated industries and occupations”.

● The list of meeting dates in paragraph 9 of Mr Stanford’s (undated) statement is incorrect. The parties met for negotiations on:

• 7 July 2011



• 4 August 2011;



• 18 August 2011;



• 31 August 2011;



• 6 October 2011;



• 20 October 2011;



• 28 October.

● Mr Stanford’s statement at paragraph 9 incorrectly states that the parties are in dispute about the term of the agreement. In fact the parties have agreed on a three year term. The only outstanding item is wages.

[4] The Respondent confirmed that it did not contend that anything substantive turns on these errors and omissions.

[5] 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.

[6] 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 [PR517462] 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

<Price code A, PR517461>