Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v KLM Group Ltd

[2012] FWA 7901

[2012] FWA 7901

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
KLM Group Ltd
(B2012/1523)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 12 SEPTEMBER 2012

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of KLM Group Pty Ltd.

[1] On 24 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 KLM Group Ltd (“the Employer”) and are represented by the CEPU in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement to the KLM Group Ltd and CEPU (WA) Union Collective Agreement 2010 (“the Agreement”).

[3] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 March 2012.

[4] The application was heard on 28 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 (PR528509). 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 Ms N Wainwright, Employee Relations Manager and evidence given by Mr S Sutton, General Manager.

[6] Mr Carter gave evidence of his role in bargaining negotiations with Mr Sutton and Ms Wainwright.

[7] Prior to discussions with the Employer, Mr Carter gave evidence of industry meetings with the National Electrical Contractors Association concerning the construction arm of the industry.

[8] On 22 June 2012, the CEPU commenced formal bargaining meetings with the Employer. There have been a total of four (4) bargaining meetings. Mr Carter tabled a summary of the bargaining meetings.

[9] Mr Carter provided an email demonstrating the CEPU’s response to the Employer’s “Service/Jobbing” section of the proposed replacement enterprise agreement.

[10] Finally, Mr Carter provided, as evidence, an email to Mr Sutton of a schedule of the differences between the parties as at 27 August 2012.

[11] The Employer took issue with only one aspect of Mr Carter’s evidence which was in relation to whether a particular meeting between the Employer and its employees could be characterised as bargaining “negotiations”. I am satisfied that the meeting was not a meeting of bargaining representatives.

[12] There is nothing to prevent an Employer meeting with its employees to discuss the status or progress of bargaining negotiations. Further, there is nothing to prevent the Employer discussing with its employees, what it is seeking from bargaining negotiations. Similarly, there is nothing generally to prevent employees seeking CEPU representation at bargaining meetings.

[13] The Employer did not oppose the application and submitted that all the requirements of the FW Act have been met. However, it sought the agreement of the CEPU on certain administrative arrangements relating to the ballot. The administrative arrangements were discussed on transcript, and agreement reached, in part. The remainder of the administrative issues, it was agreed, would be discussed at a later time if protected industrial action is to occur.

CONCLUSION

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

[15] 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 PR528509 on 28 August 2012.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

N Ireland for the CEPU.

N Wainwright on behalf of the Employer.

Hearing details:

2012:

Perth,

28 August.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR529088>