Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd
[2012] FWA 5236
•19 JUNE 2012
[2012] FWA 5236 |
|
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
Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd
(B2012/855)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 19 JUNE 2012 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd.
[1] On 6 June 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 employed by Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and are represented by the CEPU in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement to the Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd, BP Refinery (Kwinana) Site Electrical Agreement 2010 (“the Agreement”).
[3] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2012.
[4] The application was heard on 8 June 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 (PR525034). 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 Applicant by Mr T Hayes, Organiser. Mr D Brajevic represented the Employer.
APPLICANT’S CASE
[6] Mr Hayes gave evidence that negotiations commenced in early March 2012 and a total of five (5) bargaining meetings have been held. The last meeting occurred on 11 May 2012.
[7] Mr Hayes outlined the main areas of disagreement between the parties. The primary area of dispute between the parties relates to wage increases over the life of the proposed replacement agreement.
[8] Mr Hayes’ evidence was uncontested including the fact that no further meetings between the parties had been scheduled.
[9] The Applicant submitted that it has complied with the procedural requirements of the FW Act in relation to the application and that it has been and is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer.
EMPLOYER’S SUBMISSION
[10] The Employer did not oppose the application or objected to the submission and evidence of the Applicant.
CONCLUSION
[11] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 440 have been met.
[12] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, submissions and evidence from the Applicant, the Employer’s position of 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 PR525034 on 11 June 2012.
[13] It is important that I express my concern that no bargaining meetings are scheduled. I suggest that Mr Hayes and Mr Brajevic 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 Applicant.
Mr D Brajevic, for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2012:
Perth,
8 June
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR525365>
0
0
0