National Union of Workers v Pfizer (Perth) Pty Ltd

[2010] FWA 8660

[2010] FWA 8660

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

EX TEMPORE DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Pfizer (Perth) Pty Ltd
(B2010/3588)

COMMISSIONER SMITH MELBOURNE, 9 NOVEMBER 2010

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Pfizer (Perth) Pty Ltd.

The following decision, now edited, was given in transcript.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot by members of the National Union of Workers (NUW) employed by Pfizer (Perth) Pty Ltd (Pfizer). The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The applicant seeks to ballot employees of Pfizer who are members of the NUW 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 Ms Hartley, that this is the case.

[6] Pfizer do not oppose the orders being made as such but expressed disappointment over the timing of the application and submit that the time could be better spent finalising the agreement.

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

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

P. Richardson for the National Union of Workers.

E. Hartley, of Counsel, for Pfizer (Perth) Pty Ltd.

Hearing details:

2010.

Melbourne-Perth (video hearing):

November 9.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR503709>