Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd

[2012] FWA 7390

[2012] FWA 7390

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
Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd
(B2012/1493)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 28 AUGUST 2012

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd.

[1] On 16 August 2012, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (“the Applicant” or “CEPU”) 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 employees employed by Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and are represented by the CEPU in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement to the Chubb Fire Safety Perth and Bunbury Electrical Service Enterprise Agreement 2009-2012 (“the Agreement”).

[3] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2012.

[4] The application was heard on 20 August 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that the CEPU had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and an Order should issue (PR528113). These are the written reasons for issuing the Order.

[5] At the hearing, the CEPU was represented by Ms N Ireland, Industrial Officer. Evidence was given for the CEPU by Mr P Carter, Lead Organiser, CEPU. The Employer was represented by Dr Johnston, Regional Human Resources Manager.

APPLICANT’S CASE

[6] Mr Carter gave uncontested evidence that prior to the first bargaining meeting, the CEPU corresponded with the Employer and the CEPU’s log of claims was tendered into evidence.

[7] Mr Carter gave evidence that the first bargaining meeting occurred on 26 June 2012 and tendered the minutes of that meeting. A further bargaining meeting occurred on 13 July 2012 and the minutes of that meeting were also tendered into evidence.

[8] Mr Carter gave evidence of an email and draft replacement agreement from the Employer. Finally, Mr Carter referred to a series of emails setting out the outstanding issues between the parties.

[9] The CEPU submitted that it has been and is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer. While a further meeting is not scheduled, the CEPU is willing and available to meet the Employer.

[10] Dr Johnston acknowledged that both parties have been bargaining in good faith. Each party has a different position and, on that basis, the Employer is not in a position to oppose the protected ballot application order.

CONCLUSION

[11] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 448 of the FW Act have been met.

[12] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, the CEPU’s submissions, evidence and the Employer’s position in not opposing the application, I determined that the Applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on these grounds I issued Order PR528113 on 20 August 2012.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

N Ireland, for the CEPU.

Dr Johnston, on behalf of the Employer.

Hearing details:

2012:
Perth,
20 August.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR528450>