ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – scope order – bargaining order – ss.229, 238 Fair Work Act 2009 – applications for scope and bargaining orders by applicant unions – decision issued in transcript followed by written reasons – applications sought to restrain respondent from conducting proposed ballot of employees in respect of proposed enterprise agreement known as Unity Water Industry Field/Outdoor Employees (Operations and Maintenance-Non-trade) Agreement – relevant ballot scheduled for 15 June 2016 – applications for interim orders heard 13 and 14 June 2016 – applicants argued respondent unilaterally decided to change scope of proposed agreement – bargaining representatives deliberately excluded from negotiations for proposed Agreement – respondent failed to provide information to bargaining representatives in reasonable timeframe – bargaining not proceeding efficiently or fairly because of scope advanced by respondent – respondent had engaged in capricious and unfair conduct – claimed demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success in scope applications to justify scope order for single enterprise agreement [Health Services Union] – originally one agreement for which bargaining started – fairness and efficiency better accommodated with single agreement – serious issues about overlap of function of employees and fairer grouping with one agreement – respondent claimed no serious question to be tried on good faith bargaining order or scope order – argued complied with good faith bargaining provisions and did not exclude bargaining representatives from meetings and communicated separate agreement was being pursued – applicants contended had they had complied with s.238(1)-(4) – respondent refuted this claim, in particular s.238(3) – claimed AWU relevant bargaining representative and was not provided notice by applicants – applicants argued any inconvenience arising out of cancellation of ballot would not outweigh significant bargaining rights which would be forgone should vote proceed before conclusion of substantive applications – respondents contended loss of opportunity to put matter to ballot and potential for delay for those employees who would be covered by Agreement in event of successful ballot – Commission found both serious question to be tried and balance of convenience favoured issuing of interim order pending resolution of substantive scope application for applicants – Commission did not consider applications seeking interim bargaining orders demonstrated prima facie case for interim order – held ballot to be delayed pending decision in scope applications. ‘Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union’ known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and Ors v Northern SEQ Distributor – Retailer Authority t/a Unitywater
…
