Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Workers, The v Freo Group Limited
[2010] FWA 2592
•30 MARCH 2010
[2010] FWA 2592 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.236 - Application for a majority support determination
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Workers, The
v
Freo Group Limited
(B2010/2794)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY | PERTH, 30 MARCH 2010 |
Application for a majority support determination.
[1] This matter concerns an application lodged by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for a Majority Support Determination (“MSD”) pursuant to s.237 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) for employees of Freo Group Limited (“FGL”) employed at the Woodside Pluto LNG Project (“the Project”).
[2] The CFMEU says that the employees to be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement are those covered by a transitional instrument, that being the Freo Machinery Pluto Project Greenfields Agreement 2008 (“the 2008 Agreement”) which has passed its nominal expiry date.
[3] FGL opposes the making of a MSD.
[4] The Applicant is an employee organisation that has a member or members that will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement and as such is a bargaining representative for the purposes of this application.
[5] It was contended by FGL that the signatories did, or may have believed, they were signing a petition appointing the CFMEU as a bargaining representative despite the petition at the top of every page of signatories making it clear what was being signed. I do not accept the contention of FGL that there was doubt about the knowledge that the signatories to the petition had regarding their understanding of what they were signing. Rather, I accept from the evidence of Mr Hudston, Ms Vaughan and Mr Harkensee that the petition is an accurate reflection by those that signed the petition and that they wished to bargain for an enterprise agreement.
[6] FGL also appeared to infer that from their involvement in discussions with employees and the putting to a vote of employees for a proposed agreement in June, that I may be able to find that FGL had agreed to bargain. If that was FGL's contention then there was insufficient evidence placed before me to form a view regarding that. Further if FGL was contending that they had agreed to bargain then they simply had to state as much. The CFMEU indicated that if FGL did state that then the CFMEU would withdraw their application for a MSD.
[7] The circumstances here are the CFMEU has sought to bargain. FGL has not yet agreed to bargain and there appears to be good reason to issue a MSD. There was nothing convincing put to me about any circumstances that existed as to why I should not issue the MSD. Indeed there was no evidence called by FGL in support of any contentions in that regard.
[8] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.237(2) have been met and as a consequence I am obliged to issue the Determination.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
K. Sneddon, for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
A. Drake-Brockman, for Freo Group Limited
Hearing details:
2010:
Perth.
22, 26 March.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR995623>
2
0
0