"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v BP Refinery (Kwinana) Pty Ltd
[2012] FWA 5238
•19 JUNE 2012
[2012] FWA 5238 |
|
REASONS FOR DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
BP Refinery (Kwinana) Pty Ltd
(B2012/871)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 19 JUNE 2012 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of BP Refinery (Kwinana) Pty Ltd.
[1] On 8 June 2012, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (collectively “the Applicants”) made application to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for Protected Action Ballot Orders pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).
[2] The employees to be balloted are employed by BP Refinery (Kwinana) Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and are represented by the CEPU or the AMWU in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement to the BP (Kwinana Refinery) MAINTECH 2009 Maintenance Technicians Agreement (“the Agreement”).
[3] The nominal expiry dates of the Agreements are 30 June 2012.
[4] The application was heard on 12 June 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that the CEPU and AMWU had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and Orders should issue (PR525077 and PR525079 respectively). These are the written reasons for issuing the Orders.
[5] At the hearing, the CEPU was represented by Ms N Ireland, Industrial Officer. The AMWU was represented by Mr J Wilson, Industrial Officer. Evidence was given for the CEPU by Mr B Reeve and adopted by the AMWU. Mr N Ellery of counsel, represented the Employer.
APPLICANT’S CASE
[6] Mr Reeve gave evidence that this was his second round of negotiations for an enterprise agreement to replace an existing agreement for maintenance technicians.
[7] Negotiations commenced on 4 April 2012 and there have been a total of eleven (11) meetings to date. A further meeting is planned for 14 June 2012.
[8] The Applicants have tendered a log of claims and there is common understanding of the parties respective claims. At this stage, the primary area of dispute relates to salary increases over the life of the proposed replacement agreement.
[9] Mr Reeve gave evidence that an AMWU representative has attended bargaining meetings.
[10] The Applicants submitted that they have complied with the procedural requirements of the FW Act in relation to the application and have been and are genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer for a replacement agreement.
EMPLOYER’S SUBMISSION
[11] The Employer foreshadowed prior to the hearing and submitted at the hearing that it did not oppose the application and acknowledged that negotiations had been ongoing for some time. The Employer did not make any further concessions.
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 and evidence from the Applicants and the Employer’s position in not opposing the application, I determined that the Applicants had been and are genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on these grounds I issued Orders PR525077 and PR525079 on 12 June 2012.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms N Ireland, for the Applicant.
Mr N Ellery of counsel for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2012:
Perth,
12 June.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR525367>
0
0
0