Maritime Union of Australia, The v Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 2526

[2013] FWC 2526

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Maritime Union of Australia, The
v
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd
(B2013/92)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 24 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd.

[1] On 16 April 2013, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) (“Applicant”) made application to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for a protected action ballot order pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“FW Act”).

[2] The employees to be balloted are employed by Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd (“Employer”) and are employed by the Employer at Dampier Port, members of the MUA and whose employment will be covered by the terms of a proposed new enterprise agreement.

[3] The application was heard on 18 April 2013. 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 PR535842. These are the written reasons for issuing the Order.

[4] At the hearing, the MUA was represented by Mr L Edmonds, National Legal Officer of the MUA and evidence given by Mr M Brien, Organiser, MUA.

[5] The Employer did not attend the hearing.

[6] The employees to be balloted have, in part, their terms and conditions of employment contained in the Patrick Bulk and General Ports Enterprise Agreement 2010 Dampier, which has a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2011.

[7] Mr Brien gave evidence that a log of claims was submitted to the Employer on 12 July 2012. The first meeting was undertaken on 1 August 2012.

[8] Mr Brien’s evidence was that there have been two further meetings since 1 August 2012 and a telephone conference meeting on 17 April 2013. No further meetings have been scheduled.

[9] Mr Brien’s evidence was that the MUA is “trying to get the company to the table with some, you know, limited success” 1.

[10] The major difference between the parties relates to wages and what Mr Brien described as a “sign-on” bonus.

[11] The Employer advised the Commission that it did not oppose the application and had advised the MUA of its position.

CONCLUSION

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

[13] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, the MUA’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 PR535842 on 18 April 2013.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

L Edmonds for the MUA.

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

Hearing details:

2013:

Perth,

18 April.

 1   Transcript PN15

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR535989>