The Maritime Union of Australia v Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd

[2011] FWA 2235

[2011] FWA 2235

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
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd
(B2011/61)

and

The Maritime Union of Australia
v
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd
(B2011/62)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 12 APRIL 2011

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd.

[1] On 7 April 2011, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) (“the Applicant”) made application to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for Protected Action Ballot Orders 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 the ports of Brisbane (B2011/61) and Gladstone (B2011/62) and are members of the MUA.

[3] The employees to be balloted have their conditions of employment regulated, in part, by the:

• Patrick Bulk and General Ports Union Collective Workplace Agreement 2008 Brisbane (“Brisbane Agreement”); and

• Patrick Bulk and General Ports Union Collective Workplace Agreement 2008 Gladstone (“Gladstone Agreement”).

[4] The nominal expiry date of both agreements is 22 October 2010.

[5] The applications were heard and determined on 11 April 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that the MUA had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and Orders should be issued with reasons to follow. These are the written reasons for issuing the Orders.

[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.

[8] At the request of the Applicant, and pursuant to s.439 of the FW Act, both applications were heard conjointly.

BACKGROUND

[9] Counsel for the MUA sought that evidence given in previous applications in relation to Part A, or national negotiations, be incorporated and considered as part of these applications. For reasons of common relationship and applicability, I agreed to that request.

BARGAINING FOR A PROPOSED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT AT THE PORTS OF BRISBANE AND GLADSTONE

[10] Mr Trevor Munday, Deputy Secretary, Southern Queensland Branch of the MUA gave evidence of bargaining at the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone.

[11] Mr Munday gave evidence, both written and oral, of meetings between the MUA and the Employer at the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone. In concluding, Mr Munday gave evidence of the current status of bargaining.

EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE TO BARGAINING

[12] The Employer advised the Tribunal that it does not oppose the application for Order as made by the MUA, for the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone.

CONCLUSIONS

[13] I am satisfied that the “procedural” requirements of the FW Act in sections 437, 438 and 440 have been met.

[14] 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 the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone; on this basis, I issued Orders PR508354 and PR508356 on 11 April 2011.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr L Edmonds, Counsel, for the Maritime Union of Australia

Hearing details:

2011:

Perth:

11 April.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR508364>