ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – protected action ballot – s.437 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for a protected action ballot order (PABO) – application made in relation to proposed enterprise agreement applicant wished to make with respondent – respondent objected to granting of PABO – submitted Commission did not have jurisdiction to grant application and issue PABO because there had been no ‘notification time’ as required in s.437(2A) of FW Act – Maersk considered – satisfied that respondent had agreed to bargain with the applicant with respect to proposed multi-enterprise agreement (MEA) – decision to enter into bargaining involves parties coming together to see if agreement can be reached – that both come to table is not evidence that either agrees with anything the other has put to be negotiated, it is just that they have agreed to negotiate – Commission satisfied that respondent had provided notice of agreement to bargain – accepted its notice of agreement to bargain specified that proposed enterprise agreement was MEA – satisfied there had been ‘notification time’ by respondent and that notification related to proposed MEA – requirements of s.437(2) met – satisfied applicant had genuinely been trying to seek agreement with respondent with respect to employees to be balloted – PABO issued. National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Swinburne University of Technology
…
