ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – bargaining order – s.229 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant applied for bargaining order requiring respondent to cancel ballot in relation to proposed enterprise agreement and to meet with them and other bargaining representatives to bargain over certain clauses in proposed agreement – respondent was bargaining with employees and applicant for enterprise agreement to replace WorkPac P/L Mining (Coal) Industry Enterprise Agreement 2012 – negotiations for proposed agreement commenced in May 2016 and parties held 13 bargaining meetings and exchanged 14 drafts of proposed agreement – in November 2016 respondent put proposed agreement to ballot of employees which was rejected by majority of employees who cast a vote – meetings recommenced between the parties – on 20 March 2017, respondent wrote to bargaining representatives and forwarded them draft 14 of proposed agreement – respondent advised applicant that this was their final offer and that it intended to commence pre-voting requirements to allow proposed agreement to be put to a ballot of employees – applicant submitted it did not believe respondent had met requirements in ss.228(1)(d) and (e) of the FW Act because it failed to give bargaining representatives proper opportunity to engage with employer in respect of classification structure in Schedule 1 of proposed agreement – applicant sought an undertaking from respondent that it would cancel ballot and convene further bargaining meetings to discuss classification structure – respondent declined to provide undertakings sought by applicant – applicant submitted respondent had peremptorily terminated bargaining in order to avoid negotiating with employee bargaining representatives over terms of Schedule 1 – respondent submitted it had not failed to bargain in good faith and it had met each of the requirements of s.228(1) – whether party observes or fails to observe good faith bargaining requirements set out in s.228(1) is to be determined in light of all of the relevant circumstances – Endeavour Coal considered – found respondent did not fail to meet the good faith bargaining requirement in s.228(1)(d) – respondent participated in 13 bargaining meetings since May 2016 in attempt to make agreement with employees – respondent made its position clear in relation to proposals advanced by applicant and advanced its own proposals in response – found respondent did not fail to genuinely consider proposals advanced by applicant – found respondent did not fail to give genuine consideration to proposal advanced by applicant by refusing to meet to discuss its own final offer – refusal by respondent to engage in a further meeting after it had circulated its best and final offer was not failure to give genuine consideration to proposals of other bargaining representatives – found there was no failure to give reasons for refusal to participate in another meeting – found respondent did not fail to meet the good faith bargaining requirement in s.228(1)(e) – there is no absolute requirement the agreement of all bargaining representatives be obtained before proposed agreement is put to ballot of employees – had been extensive bargaining and limited scope for either party to move, it was therefore not unreasonable for respondent to refuse to participate in further meeting in the circumstances that pertained when it decided to put the proposed agreement to a ballot of employees – found respondent did not breach s.228(1)(f) – requirements in s.228(1) do not compel parties to keep negotiating until agreement is made and orders cannot be directed at that purpose – not satisfied discretion to making bargaining order was triggered or further meetings would serve any purpose relevant to meeting good faith bargaining requirements – held respondent met or was meeting the good faith bargaining requirements – application for bargaining order dismissed. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Mining and Energy Division Queensland District Branch v WorkPac P/L
…
