The ruling confirmed that Endeavour Coal had not bargained in good faith with employees at the Appin mine in NSW. An estimated 70 supervisory, administrative and technical employees were represented by the Association of Professional Engineers Scientists and Managers Australia Catherine Bolger, the director of APESMA's collieries division, said the originally sought to negotiate an enterprise agreement with the Appin mine in April 2010. Three months later, the tribunal made a majority support determination that acknowledged that Appin employees wanted to bargain collectively. Under the act, once a majority support determination is made the employer is required to bargain in good faith. After 12 meetings, an impasse was reached and the union subsequently succeeded in having Fair Work Australia rule that the company must adhere to bargaining orders. The company appealed to a full bench. a majority support determination is made, the full bench said, there is an expectation that the employer will recognise the wishes of its employees to bargain collectively for an agreement, and enter into negotiations in an endeavour to reach an agreement. Where this does not happen, a bargaining order may be sought to ensure that the obligation to bargain is fulfilled. The full found that in many respects the company complied with its formal requirements by participating in meetings and responding to union proposals. But it said it was open to the tribunal to find that the company was not showing a genuine endeavour to negotiate an agreement with the union. It said the company had not had a collective agreement and would prefer not to have a deal. While participating in the bargaining process, it did not make any substantive contribution to the possible content of an enterprise agreement, or put up proposals. "In circumstances it was open to the commissioner, and appropriate on the evidence, to conclude that the good faith bargaining requirements envisioned by (the act) were not being met by the company, in that it was not giving genuine consideration to the proposals being put by APESMA," the full bench said. Ms Bolger said the ruling was a "major blow for companies who think it is OK to simply go through the motions, with little interest in proper negotiations".
The ruling confirmed that Endeavour Coal had not bargained in good faith with employees at the Appin mine in NSW. An estimated 70 supervisory, administrative and technical employees were represented by the Association of Professional Engineers Scientists and Managers Australia Catherine Bolger, the director of APESMA's collieries division, said the originally sought to negotiate an enterprise agreement with the Appin mine in April 2010. Three months later, the tribunal made a majority support determination that acknowledged that Appin employees wanted to bargain collectively. Under the act, once a majority support determination is made the employer is required to bargain in good faith. After 12 meetings, an impasse was reached and the union subsequently succeeded in having Fair Work Australia rule that the company must adhere to bargaining orders. The company appealed to a full bench. a majority support determination is made, the full bench said, there is an expectation that the employer will recognise the wishes of its employees to bargain collectively for an agreement, and enter into negotiations in an endeavour to reach an agreement. Where this does not happen, a bargaining order may be sought to ensure that the obligation to bargain is fulfilled. The full found that in many respects the company complied with its formal requirements by participating in meetings and responding to union proposals. But it said it was open to the tribunal to find that the company was not showing a genuine endeavour to negotiate an agreement with the union. It said the company had not had a collective agreement and would prefer not to have a deal. While participating in the bargaining process, it did not make any substantive contribution to the possible content of an enterprise agreement, or put up proposals. "In circumstances it was open to the commissioner, and appropriate on the evidence, to conclude that the good faith bargaining requirements envisioned by (the act) were not being met by the company, in that it was not giving genuine consideration to the proposals being put by APESMA," the full bench said. Ms Bolger said the ruling was a "major blow for companies who think it is OK to simply go through the motions, with little interest in proper negotiations".
misc_11.docx