The Maritime Union of Australia v Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd
[2011] FWA 4002
•23 JUNE 2011
[2011] FWA 4002 |
|
REASONS FOR DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
The Maritime Union of Australia
v
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd
(B2011/118)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 23 JUNE 2011 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd.
[1] On 19 June 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 FW Act”).
[2] The employees to be balloted are employed by Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty ltd (“the Employer”) at its Bulk and General Ports operations at Westernport in Victoria.
[3] The Employees to be balloted have their conditions of employment regulated, in part, by the:
- Patrick Bulk and General Union Collective Workplace Agreement 2008 Westernport (“the Agreement”).
[4] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 March 2011.
[5] The applications were heard and determined on 23 June 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that the MUA had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and an Order should be issued with reasons to follow. These are the written reasons for issuing the Order.
[6] The Employer’s Bulk and General Business Operations has 17 enterprise agreements around the nation with the MUA.
[7] Negotiations for the notionally expired enterprise agreements are taking place at two levels. Firstly, what is referred to as Part A negotiations which are negotiations at a national level and focus on those matters which apply around the nation. Secondly, what is referred to as Part B (sometimes and previously referred to as Part C) negotiations, and they are individual port negotiations, on matters relating to local conditions and practices.
BARGAINING FOR A PROPOSED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT AT WESTERNPORT
[8] Mr Robert Patchett, Assistant Secretary, MUA Victorian Branch gave evidence of bargaining meetings commencing from 28 February 2011 both in relation to Part A and Part B as it is relevant to Westernport.
[9] At the 28 February 2011 meeting, the MUA provided the Employer with its log of claims. On 30 May 2011, the Manager of the Employer’s Westernport operations sought a copy of the MUA log of claims. On 6 June 2011, the Employer met with the MUA and verbally advised its claims. The MUA sought the Employer’s claims in writing. The Employer provided its claims in writing to the MUA on 22 June 2011. The MUA has not received a response or counterproposal to its claims.
EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE TO BARGAINING
[10] The Employer advised the Tribunal that it does not oppose the application for the Order as made by the MUA for Westernport.
CONCLUSIONS
[11] I am satisfied that the “procedural” requirements of the FW Act in sections 437, 438 and 440 have been met.
[12] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, written and oral evidence, submissions by the MUA and the fact that the Employer is not opposing the application, I determined that the Applicant has been, and is genuinely trying to reach agreement with Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd at Westernport in Victoria; on this basis, I issued Order PR510846 on 23 June 2011.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mr L Edmonds for the Maritime Union of Australia.
Hearing details:
2011:
Perth:
23 June
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR510850>
0
0
0