The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 2525

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers
v
Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd
(B2014/69)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 16 APRIL 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd.

[1] On 14 April 2014, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers (AIMPE) made an application for a protected action ballot Order. The application was made pursuant to section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in respect of members of the AIMPE who are employees of Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd (the employer) whose employment is to be regulated by the proposed agreement to replace the Sydney Ferries Maritime (AMOU and MUA) Enterprise Agreement 2012 [AE891796] and Sydney Ferries Maritime (AIMPE) Enterprise Agreement 2012 [AE893429].

[2] The application seeks a ballot of employees of the employer who are members of the AIMPE and who would be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement. The application included a Statement of Joseph Santo Fallone dated 14 April 2014 (the Statement). In summary, the Statement provided information about events involving attempts made by the AIMPE to reach agreement with the employer on the terms of a proposed enterprise agreement.

[3] The application was listed for Hearing before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 16 April 2014, at which time Mr J Fallone appeared on behalf of the AIMPE. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the employer. The Commission received a communication from Mr Ian Faulks on behalf of the employer dated 16 April 2014, advising that the employer did not oppose the application for a protected action ballot Order.

[4] In view of the materials filed, including in particular the Statement of Joseph Santo Fallone dated 14 April 2014, and the submissions made by the AIMPE during the Hearing, the Commission provided an extemporary determination of the application and this Decision is issued as confirmation of that determination.

[5] The determination of this matter is primarily governed by the provisions of section 443 of the Act. Section 443 is in the following terms:

“443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC 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) the FWC 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) The FWC 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 the FWC 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 the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If the FWC 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.”

[6] In this instance I am satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with section 437 of the Act. In particular, I am satisfied that the applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. In addition, I am satisfied that the requirements of sections 438 and 440 of the Act have also been met.

[7] Therefore, pursuant to subsection 443(1) of the Act, the Commission must make the protected action ballot Order sought by the AIMPE. Accordingly an Order [PR549710] is issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr J Fallone, on behalf of the AIMPE.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the employer.

Hearing details:

2014.

Sydney:

April, 16.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers brought a claim against Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of Harbour City Ferries, who were members of the Institute. The Institute sought a declaration that the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was unlawful, and that it was entitled to conduct the ballot on the employer's premises. The employer argued that the ballot was not related to protected industrial action and thus not permissible under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the proposed ballot constituted protected action under the Act and whether the employer was entitled to prohibit the ballot on its premises. The Court considered the definitions and requirements for protected industrial action and the rights of unions and employers under the Act. The primary focus was on whether the ballot related to an industrial issue and whether it was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.

The Court found that the proposed ballot related to an industrial issue and was therefore protected action. It determined that the employer did not have the right to prohibit the union from conducting the ballot on its premises. The Court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, which prioritise the right to conduct lawful industrial action. The employer's attempt to prevent the ballot was deemed to interfere with the employees' rights to engage in protected action.

The Court issued a declaration that the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was unlawful and that the Institute was entitled to conduct the ballot on the employer's premises. The Court emphasised the importance of upholding the rights of employees and unions to engage in lawful industrial action, while also considering the balance of rights between employers and employees under the Fair Work Act.

The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established