Maritime Union of Australia, The v Broadsword Marine Contractors Pty Ltd
[2012] FWA 10213
•7 DECEMBER 2012
[2012] FWA 10213 |
|
REASONS FOR DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
Maritime Union of Australia, The
v
Broadsword Marine Contractors Pty Ltd
(B2012/1763)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 7 DECEMBER 2012 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Broadsword Marine Contractors.
[1] On 19 November 2012, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) (“the Applicant”) 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 Broadsword Marine Contractors Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and are engaged by the Employer to work in dredging operations in Darwin harbour and whose employment will be covered by the terms of a proposed new enterprise agreement.
[3] The application was heard on 21 November 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I was satisfied that the MUA has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer whose employees are to be balloted. Accordingly, I issued Order PR531628. These are the written reasons for issuing the Order.
[4] At the hearing, the MUA was represented by Mr L Edmonds of the MUA and evidence given by Mr D Heath, Organiser, MUA.
[5] The Employer did not attend the hearing.
[6] Mr Heath gave evidence that the MUA provided a log of claims to the Employer.
[7] Mr Heath also gave evidence that bargaining commenced on April 2012 and further meetings occurred in June, July, August, September and October and throughout the three (3) weeks preceding the hearing. The bargaining representatives for the MUA have been himself, Mr Cain, Secretary MUA Western Australian Branch and Mr May, MUA Northern Territory Organiser. Bargaining with the Employer has been with Mr Farris, Mr Diamond or their legal representative.
[8] Mr Heath described the current status of negotiations as completed “in principle” and the necessity of the Employer to provide a draft agreement for employees to vote upon in a ballot. In Mr Heath’s view, the parties are “not far away from reaching agreement”.
[9] Mr Heath gave evidence that Mr Diamond was aware of the MUA’s application and that “he advised me that the company wouldn’t contest the application” 1. However, Mr Diamond did not advise whether they would attend the hearing or not.
CONCLUSION
[10] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 448 of the FW Act have been met.
[11] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, the MUA’s submissions, evidence and the Employer’s understood 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 PR531628 on 21 November 2012.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
L Edmonds for the MUA.
No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2012:
Perth
21 November.
1 PN 24
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR531979>
0
0
0