The Maritime Union of Australia v Esperance Ports Sea and Land

Case

[2011] FWA 1933

30 MARCH 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

[2011] FWA 1933


FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

The Maritime Union of Australia
v
Esperance Ports Sea and Land
(B2011/30)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 30 MARCH 2011

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Esperance Ports Sea and Land.

[1] On 2 March 2011, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) “(the Applicant”) made application to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for a Protected Action Ballot Order pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”).

[2] The employees to be balloted are employed by Esperance Ports Sea and Land (EPSL) in the Port of Esperance and who perform port operations work within the stevedoring, maintenance, civil and administration areas. The employees are subject to a proposed enterprise agreement for whom the MUA is a bargaining representative.

[3] The employees to be balloted have their conditions of employment regulated, in part, by the Esperance Port Sea and Land Enterprise Agreement 2009/10. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2010.

[4] Mr Edmonds, of Counsel, made submissions and Mr Tracey, Assistant Secretary, WA Branch gave evidence for the MUA.

[5] Mr Davies, of Counsel, represented the EPSL.

[6] I am satisfied that the application has been properly made and served pursuant to s.437 and s.440 of the Act respectively.

[7] I am also satisfied, after hearing the evidence of Mr Tracey, that the MUA is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer of the employees to be balloted.

[8] Mr Davies for the Employer, submitted that EPSL does not oppose the application subject to the MUA not pressing “for provisions of the type that are contained in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Schedule A” of the current Agreement 1.

[9] Mr Tracey gave evidence that the MUA is not seeking to “place restrictions on the use of contractors” 2 and that future discussions would “respect” and not contravene the provisions of the Act3.

[10] Having heard the submissions of the parties and the evidence of Mr Tracey, I was satisfied that the Applicant has met the requirements of s.443 of the Act.

[11] These are the reasons for my decision to issue Order (PR507411) on 8 March 2011.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr L Edmonds of WG McNally Jones Staff for the Maritime Union of Australia.

Mr T Davies of Blake Dawson for Esperance Ports Sea and Land.

Hearing details:

2011

Perth:

8 March

 1   PN 40

 2   PN 56

 3   PN 56 and 57



Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer


<Price code A, PR507966>

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0