ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – jurisdiction – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) (Unions) and some of their members employed by the respondent are variously covered by three agreements in respect to maintenance work the respondent is contracted by Origin Energy (Origin) to undertake – the agreements that cover the parties in dispute and pursuant to which the applications are made are the Transfield Services (Origin Energy Lang Lang and Yolla Facilities) Electrical and Instrumentation (ETU) Maintenance Agreement 2015-2018 (Yolla Electrical Agreement); the Transfield Services (Origin Energy Lang Lang and Yolla Facilities) AWU & AMWU Mechanical Maintenance Agreement 2015-2018 (Yolla Mechanical Agreement) (collectively the Origin Energy Agreements); and the Transfield Services (Australia) P/L and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2010-2014 (Thylacine Agreement) – CEPU lodged an application to deal with a dispute in accordance with dispute resolution procedure contained in Yolla Electrical Agreement and Thylacine Agreement – AWU also lodged an application to deal with a dispute under Yolla Mechanical Agreement – the applications concern a number of issues in respect of work performed at Origin Sites – respondent raised a jurisdictional objection arising from failure by Unions to comply with the dispute resolution procedures set out in Origin Energy Agreements and Thylacine Agreement – said the Unions had not complied with relevant threshold steps before matters in dispute may be referred to the Commission, and that the applications were made prematurely – respondent also separately opposed AWU application and submitted it should be dismissed because issues were resolved prior to hearing – dispute was listed for hearing to deal with jurisdictional objection – Commission found it had jurisdiction to deal with the disputes in the Origin Energy Agreements – found the dispute settlement procedures provided in clause 9.2 of the Origin Energy Agreements in respect of the issues that remained in dispute had been followed and Commission’s jurisdiction had been properly invoked – Commission not satisfied it had jurisdiction to deal with dispute settlement procedure of the Thylacine Agreement – not satisfied on evidence that CEPU had followed the procedure in clause 15.2 of the Thylacine Agreement – applications made by AWU and CEPU to deal with a dispute in accordance with dispute settlement procedure in the Origin Energy Agreements will be listed for conference. Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Anor v Broadspectrum (Australia) P/L
…
