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

[2012] FWA 4085

[2012] FWA 4085

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

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
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
(B2012/765)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 11 MAY 2012

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd.

[1] On 8 May 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”) (“the Unions”) 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 Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and are represented by the Unions in bargaining for a replacement agreement to the Inghams Enterprises Osborne Park Maintenance Agreement 2010 (“the Agreement”).

[3] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 14 January 2012.

[4] The application was heard on 10 May 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that the Unions had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and an Order should issue (PR523641). These are the written reasons for issuing the Order.

[5] At the hearing, the CEPU was represented by Ms N Ireland, Industrial Officer and the AMWU by Mr J Wilson, Industrial Officer. Evidence was given for the Unions by Mr A Giddens, Organiser, Western Australian Branch of the CEPU. Ms Jessica Lawrence, Human Resources Business Partner advised the Tribunal on 9 May 2012 that the Employer did not oppose the application for a Protected Action Ballot Order and consequently did not appear in proceedings.

APPLICANT’S CASE

[6] Mr Giddens gave evidence generally of his involvement in bargaining for a replacement agreement.

[7] Mr Giddens gave evidence of his role in creating a joint log of claims presented to the Employer from the Unions. Bargaining took place by telephone as the Employer’s negotiators are in Sydney. Ms Murphy, for the AMWU, was in attendance at bargaining meetings.

[8] The log of claims from the Unions was tendered as an exhibit.

[9] There have been five (5) bargaining meetings.

[10] The key issue to be settled between the parties relates to wages.

[11] The last bargaining meeting was on 17 April 2012.

[12] Subsequent to the last meeting, the Employer conducted a ballot of a proposed agreement. The employees rejected, by ballot, the proposed agreement.

[13] No further meetings have been scheduled.

[14] Both Unions submitted that they are genuinely trying to reach agreement on a replacement agreement.

EMPLOYER’S CASE

[15] The Employer, by email, advised the Tribunal that it would not oppose the application for a protected action ballot order.

CONCLUSION

[16] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 440 have been met.

[17] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, oral evidence, submissions from the Unions and the Employer not opposing the application, I determined that the Unions have been and are genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on this basis I issued Order PR523641 on 10 May 2012.

[18] It is important that I express my concern that no bargaining meetings are scheduled. I suggest the Unions and the Employer read my comments in [2012] FWA 1081 Fair Work Australia v Union of Christmas Island Workers; Phosphate Resources Ltd especially paragraphs [70] to [77] concerning the need for parties to communicate with each other to meet good faith bargaining.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms N Ireland for the CEPU.

Mr J Wilson for the AMWU.

No appearance by the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2012:
Perth,
10 May.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR523703>