Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v National Fire Solutions Pty Ltd
[2012] FWA 5237
•19 JUNE 2012
[2012] FWA 5237 |
|
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
National Fire Solutions Pty Ltd
(B2012/859)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 19 JUNE 2012 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of National Fire Solutions Pty Ltd.
[1] On 8 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 National Fire Solutions Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and are represented by the CEPU in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement to the National Fire Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd Fire Alarms Contracting Division, Major Commercial Enterprise Agreement 2009 and the National Fire Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd Fire Alarms Service and Minor Works Division, Major Commercial Enterprise Agreement 2009 (“the Agreements”).
[3] The nominal expiry dates of the Agreements are 30 June 2012.
[4] The application was heard on 11 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 (PR525047). 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 P Carter, Lead Organiser, CEPU. The Employer did not make an appearance at the hearing. Mr Carter gave evidence that, in conversation with Mr Knapp, Regional Manager, earlier on 8 June 2012, he stated that the Employer did not intend making an appearance and did not oppose the application.
APPLICANT’S CASE
[6] Mr Carter gave evidence of the coverage of the Agreements. On or around the end of April or early May 2012 Mr Carter forwarded a log of claims to the Employer with a request that employees be given notice of employee representation rights. Finally, Mr Carter sought dates and times for bargaining meetings. The log of claims was tendered as an exhibit.
[7] There have been three (3) bargaining meetings and a further planned meeting on or about 15 June 2012.
[8] Mr Carter tendered minutes of the meeting of 17 May 2012, “Revision 1 Offer”, “NFS Revision 1 Offer” and “Revision 2 Offer”.
[9] While the parties are bargaining in good faith, Mr Carter gave evidence of an impasse. Finally, Mr Carter outlined the primary areas of differences between the parties, in particular, the term of the agreement and wage increases over the life of the replacement agreement.
[10] The Applicant submitted that it had 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 POSITION AS UNDERSTOOD BY APPLICANT
[11] The Employer’s position, as understood by the Applicant, is that it does not oppose the application.
CONCLUSION
[12] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 440 have been met.
[13] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, the CEPU submission, evidence of the Applicant 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 PR525047 on 11 June 2012.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms N Ireland, for the Applicant.
No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2012:
Perth,
11 June.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR525366>
0
0
0