ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application concerning a dispute about the meaning and import of the word meeting – Company proposed to conduct bargaining meetings using telephone facilities – MUA claimed clause in Viterra Ltd Build Loadings Plants Enterprise Agreement 2012 required a meeting to be held in-person – argued the term meeting was used in Agreement separately to that of a conference and teleconference was more consistent with being a conference rather than a meeting – contended Union would never have agreed to clause if it meant anything other than face-to-face meeting – Company agreed meaning of meeting in clause was unclear and ambiguous – contended not necessary that meetings occur in-person – ordinary meaning of term contemplates going beyond the sense of face-to-face – claimed a technical and strict approach to construction of provision would lead to narrow result – Commission applied approach taken in Golden Cockerel – considered objective and intent of Agreement – acknowledged both benefit of face-to-face meetings and the costs and lost time – held clause does not require a meeting to be held face-to-face – meetings can be conducted wholly or partly in person, by telephone or video link – recommended that at least once in each two year period, the bargaining group meet face-to-face. Maritime Union of Australia v Viterra Limited.
…
