Ms Raechel Smith v Toll Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd
[2011] FWA 7082
•14 OCTOBER 2011
[2011] FWA 7082 |
|
REASONS FOR DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
Ms Raechel Smith
v
Toll Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd
(B2011/3687)
and
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Toll Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd
(B2011/3688)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 14 OCTOBER 2011 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Toll Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd.
[1] On 5 October 2011, Raechel Smith (Bargaining Representative) (B2011/3687) and the Australian Municipal, Administrative Clerical and Services Union (ASU) (B2011/3688) [collectively “the Applicants”] 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 employed by Toll Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and represented by the Applicants who will be covered by a replacement enterprise agreement for the Toll Dnata (Perth Airports) Collective Agreement 2008 (“the Agreement”).
[3] The nominal expiry date for the Agreement is 30 June 2011.
[4] The applications were heard and determined on 6 October 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, I determined that the provisions of the FW Act had been satisfied and that orders should issue. These are the written reason for issuing the Orders.
APPLICANTS’ CASE
[5] The Applicants submitted that the procedural requirements relating to the applications had been complied with. Further, that the Applicants have been and are genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer.
[6] For the Applicants, Mr P Burlinson, Industrial Coordinator, ASU gave uncontested evidence of the commencement of discussions and communications with the relevant employees in January 2011. Mr Burlinson’s evidence demonstrated that: meetings with the Employer began in June 2011; the tabling of the ASU’s log of claims; schedule of meetings; Employer response to the log of claims; endorsement of employees to terminate the nominally expired current agreement; exchange of information relating to the claims and the decision by cleaners, covered by the proposed agreement, to seek a separate bargaining representative, Ms Smith.
EMPLOYER’S SUBMISSIONS
[7] The Employer’s representative submitted to the Tribunal that the Employer did not oppose or consent to the applications. However, the Employer objected to one identical question in the draft orders attached to the applications.
[8] Following an adjournment, the parties agreed to the wording of the question subject of the Employer’s concerns. I considered it appropriate that the draft orders attached to the applications be amended accordingly pursuant to s.586(a) of the FW Act.
CONCLUSION
[9] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 440 of the FW Act have been met.
[10] Having considered the submissions of Ms Smith and the ASU, the evidence of Mr Burlinson and the Employer’s position on the applications, I determined that the Applicants have been and are genuinely trying to reach agreement for a replacement agreement with the Employer; on this basis, I issued Orders PR515410 and PR515408.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
R Smith, the Applicant.
L Cayoun on behalf of the ASU.
A Longland of Freehills for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2011:
Perth,
6 October.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR515755>
0
0
0