Maritime Union of Australia v United Maritime Australia Pty Ltd

[2012] FWA 3049

[2012] FWA 3049

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Maritime Union of Australia
v
United Maritime Australia Pty Ltd
(B2012/70)

and

Australian Maritime Officers’ Union
v
United Maritime Australia Pty Ltd
(B2012/71)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 13 APRIL 2012

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of United Maritime Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] On 3 April 2012, the Maritime Union of Australia (“the MUA” (B2012/70) and the Australian Maritime Officers’ Union (“the AMOU”) (B2012/71) (collectively “the Applicants”) made application to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for Protected Action Ballot Orders pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).

[2] The employees to be balloted are employed by United Maritime Australia Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and represented by either the MUA or the AMOU.

[3] The Employer for both applications is the same and the form of the applications similar. For this reason, the Applicants sought that the applications be joined and heard together; there being no objection from the Employer, the matters were joined, heard and determined together.

[4] At the conclusion of the hearing on 5 April 2012, I made a determination that the Applicants had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and orders should issue (PR522180 and PR522182 respectively). These are the written reasons for my determination.

[5] The Applicants were represented by Mr Edmonds of counsel. The Employer was represented by Ms D’Ascanio of counsel, Corrs Chambers Westgarth.

[6] At the hearing, there was no dispute between the parties as to who would be covered by any proposed agreement.

[7] The Employer does not dispute or oppose the application and expected orders to be made, subject to amendments being made to the draft orders.

[8] The parties agreed on the amendments to the draft orders.

[9] For the purposes of application B2012/71, the Applicant’s representative sought, and I granted, that the names of those persons who had appointed the AMOU as a bargaining representative for bargaining purposes not be made available for public search.

CONCLUSION

[10] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437 and 440 of the FW Act have been met.

[11] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, submissions from the Applicants and the Employer not opposing the applications, I determined that the MUA and AMOU have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on these grounds, I issued orders PR522180 and PR522182 on 5 April 2012.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr Edmonds, of counsel for the Applicants.

Ms D’Ascanio, of counsel for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2012:
Perth,
5 April

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR522237>