Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Alcoa Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited

[2009] FWA 268

[2009] FWA 268

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
v
Alcoa Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited
(B2009/10397)

COMMISSIONER LEWIN MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2009

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Alcoa Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited.

[1] This matter concerns an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) for an Order pursuant to s.447 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, and put to the persons employed by Alcoa ARP (Alcoa) who are members of the CEPU.

[2] On receipt of the application, it became apparent that Alcoa would object to the issue of the order in the terms of the draft order filed in the Commission attached to the CEPU’s application on the grounds that the CEPU had not make genuine attempts to reach agreement, and were not bargaining in good faith. This objection was subsequently withdrawn.

[3] The matter was listed for hearing at 4.30 pm on Wednesday 5 August 2009, and Alcoa was directed to file materials with the Tribunal by 6.00 pm. At the hearing Alcoa made submissions concerning the content of the order sought by the application.

[4] Subsequent to the Hearing, an Amended Draft Order was filed by the CEPU in chambers and provided to Alcoa on 6 August 2009. On 7 August 2009, correspondence was filed in chambers by the legal representative of Alcoa which provided that the Amended Draft Order addressed the concerns that were raised by Alcoa in the hearing.

[5] An Order was issued in the terms of the Amended Draft Order. On what was before me I was satisfied that the statutory requirements for the making of a protected action ballot order had been met and that an order should be issued in accordance with the statutory direction prescribed by s.443(1) of the Act.

[6] The Order specified the matters required by s.443(1) of the Act. A copy of the Order was provided to the applicant, to the respondent, and the ballot agent in accordance with s.445 of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr P Larkins

Mr Anthony Wood, for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2009

5 August

Melbourne

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR989184>