ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – protected action ballot – s.437 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for a protected action ballot order (PABO) – respondent opposed application – submitted that applicant was not genuinely trying to reach agreement and that application was premature – considered JJ Richards & Sons – whether applicant genuinely trying to reach agreement a question of fact to be decided having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case [Esso] – no specific stage of negotiations must be reached in order to find that the applicant is genuinely trying to reach agreement [H J Heinz] – Commission satisfied that applicant genuinely trying to reach agreement – respondent submitted that the PABO questions should be amended due to work health and safety considerations and longer period for notice requirements for industrial action – Commission not persuaded that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the extension of the minimum period of written notice prescribed by the FW Act – Commission noted that PABO questions must be precise so employees are able to make educated choice about how to vote in the PABO – Commission satisfied as to matters set out in s.437(1) – application granted. Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Grange Resources (Tasmania) P/L
…
