Detective Superintendent Neil Paterson v Victoria Police Force

[2011] FWA 5323

[2011] FWA 5323

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Application for a protected action ballot order

Detective Superintendent Neil Paterson
v
Victoria Police Force
(B2011/182)

COMMISSIONER SMITH MELBOURNE, 11 AUGUST 2011

Proposed protected action ballot by Detective Superintendent Neil Paterson.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot by Detective Superintendent Neil Paterson, (“the Applicant”) who acts as a bargaining representative on behalf of Superintendents who have nominated him, and are employed by Victoria Police (“the Employer”). The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”).

[2] The applicant seeks to ballot employees of the Employer who have authorised him to bargain and who would be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement.

[3] In considering this matter I must apply s.443 of the Act which provides:

443 When FWA must make a protected action ballot order

(1) FWA must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) FWA is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) FWA must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(4) If FWA decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that FWA decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that FWA decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If FWA is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.

[4] To begin, I am satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with s.437 of the Act.

[5] The next matter to which attention must be given is whether or not the applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. I am satisfied, after hearing submissions from Detective Superintendent Paterson, that this is the case.

[6] Having decided that s.443(1)(a) and (b) have been complied with, I must make a protected action ballot order, as sought by Detective Superintendent Paterson. My order will issue shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

N Paterson the applicant.

L Cheligoy on behalf of Victoria Police.

Hearing details:

2011.

Melbourne:

August, 10.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR513340>