United Voice v Western Water Services Pty Ltd
[2012] FWA 5233
•19 JUNE 2012
[2012] FWA 5233 |
|
REASONS FOR DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
United Voice
v
Western Water Services Pty Ltd
(B2012/842)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 19 JUNE 2012 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Western Water Services Pty Ltd.
[1] On 1 June 2012, United Voice (“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 Western Water Services Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and are represented by United Voice in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement for the Western Water Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2010 (“the Agreement”).
[3] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2012.
[4] The application was heard on 7 June 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that United Voice had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and an Order should issue (PR524950). These are the written reasons for issuing the Order.
[5] At the hearing, United Voice was represented by Ms E Palmer, Team Leader, Industrial. Evidence was given for the Applicant by Mr S Dane, Industrial Officer. Ms Natasha Wainwright, National Human Resource Manager, represented the Employer.
APPLICANT’S CASE
[6] Mr Dane gave written evidence that on 1 February 2012, Programmed (PRA) Pty Ltd assumed control of Western Water Services Pty Ltd.
[7] On 8 February 2012, Mr Dane forwarded correspondence to Ms Wainwright seeking to commence bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement.
[8] On 1 March 2012, the Applicant, other employee organisations and the Employer met to discuss the scope of a proposed replacement agreement(s).
[9] On 2 March 2012, Ms Wainwright forwarded a preliminary draft enterprise agreement to Mr Dane.
[10] A further meeting occurred on 8 March 2012 to discuss the scope of the proposed agreement. It was agreed that the Applicant and the Employer would bargain for a separate enterprise agreement.
[11] The Applicant and the Employer have exchanged numerous emails, drafts of proposed agreements and attended seven (7) bargaining meetings.
[12] The Applicant has complied with the procedural requirements and submitted that it has and is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer.
EMPLOYER’S SUBMISSION
[13] The Employer did not oppose the application and stated that, in its view the Applicant had met the requirements of the FW Act.
CONCLUSION
[14] I was satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 440 have been met.
[15] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, submissions and evidence from the Applicant, and the Employer not opposing the application, I determined that United Voice has been and is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on these grounds I issued Order PR524950 on 7 June 2012.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms E Palmer for the Applicant.
Ms N Wainwright for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2012:
Perth
7 June.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR525360>
0
0
0