T12753
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Mark David David and Family Based Care Association North West Inc.
Industrial dispute - The Family Based Care North West Support Staff Enterprise Agreement 2006 - application dismissed REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 10 August 2006, Mark David David (the applicant) applied to the President, pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute with Family Based Care Association North West Inc. (the respondent) arising out of The Family Based Care North West Support Staff Enterprise Agreement 2006.1 [2] The matter was listed for hearing at 11.00 am, on 17 August 2006 at the Supreme Court, Cameron Street, Launceston, Tasmania. [3] Mark David David represented himself. Ms S Cornish, Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, for the respondent, with Mr G Moore and Ms J Freeman. BACKGROUND [4] On 29 May 2006 an enterprise agreement between The Family Based Care Association North West Inc. and an Employee Committee, formed to represent Persons Employed in the Enterprise, was presented for approval to the Commission. [5] Prior to the hearing the Employee Committee indicated concerns they had with the agreement. At the start of the hearing the matter was directed into a conciliation conference at which the points at issue were resolved. When the hearing resumed, it was indicated to the Commission that consensus had been reached between the parties. The agreement was subsequently approved. [6] The applicant alleged that, as prescribed in s61I(2), all parties were not aware of their entitlement and obligations, nor were they aware of the impact of changes to their existing conditions. [7] The applicant further alleged the bargaining process was inappropriate and that the agreement was made under duress. [8] The applicant was not a member of the Employee Committee charged with negotiating the agreement. [9] Mr Cornish, on behalf of the respondent, raised the issue that the application was raised after the 14 days prescribed in s61K(1) of the Act for notification of withdrawal from the agreement. FINDINGS [10] The applicant was not a direct party to the enterprise agreement negotiations. He alleged considerable impropriety and duplicity on the part of the respondent, with no plausible evidence. The applicant was not supported in his assertions by any member of the Employee Committee. [11] I find the application vexatious, and further that applicant did not give written notice as stated in the decision of 29 May 2006 as follows:
ORDER Under s21(2)(c)(iv) of the Act the application is dismissed, and I so order.
James P McAlpine Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing:
|