Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Tyco Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald

[2012] FWA 6941

[2012] FWA 6941

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
Tyco Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald
(B2012/1450)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 14 AUGUST 2012

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Tyco Australia Pty Ltd t/as Wormald.

[1] On 3 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 Tyco Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald (“the Employer”) and are represented by the CEPU in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement to the Wormald Fire Alarms Testing Enterprise Agreement 2009 and the Wormald Fire Alarm Service Enterprise Agreement 2009 (“the Agreements”).

[3] The nominal expiry dates of the Agreements are 30 June 2012.

[4] The application was heard on 6 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 (PR527605). 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, for reasons set out later, did not attend the hearing.

APPLICANT’S CASE

[6] Mr Carter gave evidence of his role in negotiation for a replacement enterprise agreement for the Agreements.

[7] Prior to the first formal meeting in July 2012, the parties engaged in an exchange of emails and unofficial discussions.

[8] Mr Carter provided a record of the minutes of meetings which took place on 18 July, 27 July and 2 August 2012 1. A further meeting was scheduled for 8 August 2012.

[9] Mr Carter also provided to the Tribunal an email from himself to the Employer setting out the key differences between the parties at this stage in negotiations 2.

[10] Mr Carter gave evidence of the CEPU’s log of claims which was forwarded to the Employer in late June or early July 2012.

[11] The Applicant submitted that the procedural requirements of the FW Act had been complied with and the CEPU was genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer.

EMPLOYER’S CASE

[12] The Employer, by email, advised the Tribunal that it did not oppose the application by the CEPU.

CONCLUSION

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

[14] 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 PR527605 on 7 August 2012.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

N Ireland, for the CEPU.

No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Employer.

Hearing details:

2012:
Perth,
6 August.

 1   Exhibit A1

 2   Exhibit A2

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR527906>