Application for Amalgamation Ballot Exemption for the proposed Amalgamation of The Electrical Trades Union of Employees Queensland [2017] QIRC 4

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Re: Application for Amalgamation Ballot Exemption for the proposed Amalgamation of The Electrical Trades Union of Employees Queensland [2017] QIRC 4 PARTIES: The Electrical Trades Union of Employees Queensland (Applicant) CASE NO: RIO/2016/118 PROCEEDING: Application for an Amalgamation Ballot Exemption DELIVERED ON: 6 February 2017 HEARING DATE: 2 February 2017 HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: Vice President Linnane ORDER: The exemption from ballot for members of The Electrical Trades Union of Employees Queensland in the proposed amalgamation of The Electrical Trades Union of Employees Queensland and the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees, Queensland Union of Employees is approved. CATCHWORDS: Application for exemption from ballot in a proposed amalgamation – Application granted. CASES: Industrial Relations Act 1999 Industrial Relations Regulations 2011, s 64, s 86 APPEARANCES: Mr J. Payne of Hall Payne Lawyers and with him Mr D. Blackmore for The Electrical Trades Union of Employees Queensland Decision [1] The Electrical Trades Union of Employees Queensland (ETU) filed in the Industrial Registry on 22 November 2016 an application for an Amalgamation Ballot Exemption from the requirement to hold a ballot for the proposed amalgamation of the ETU and the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees, Queensland Union of Employees (AFULE). Before considering this Amalgamation Ballot -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Exemption, I must find that the Application for an Amalgamation Ballot has been made in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Act). [2] An Application for Amalgamation Ballot was also filed in the Industrial Registry on 22 November 2016 by the State President and State Secretary of the ETU and the State President and State Secretary of the AFULE. That application is RIO/2016/117. A decision in RIO/2016/117 is released at the same time as this decision. That decision contains a finding that the Application for an Amalgamation Ballot has been made in accordance with the Act. [3] Section 64 of the Industrial Relations Regulation 2011 (Regulation) deals with amalgamation ballot exemption and provides as follows: "64 Amalgamation ballot exemption - number of members (1) A proposed amalgamated organisation may apply to the commission for an exemption (a ballot exemption) from the requirement to hold a ballot for the amalgamation. (2) The application may be made only on the ground that the number of persons that could become members of the proposed amalgamated organisation is not more than 25% of the number of members of the applicant when the application was filed. (3) The application must - (a) be filed in the registry together with the ballot application for the amalgamation; and (b) state the ground on which it is made; and (c) be signed by the president or secretary of the applicant; and (d) be accompanied by an affidavit by a member of the applicant’s management committee stating that subsection (4)(b) has been complied with. (4) An application may be made only if the applicant's management committee has - (a) resolved to make the application; and (b) notified the organisation's members of the making of the resolution by - (i) giving each member a copy of the resolution; or (ii) including it in a publication the organisation gives to its members free of charge." -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [4] The ETU relies upon two Affidavits of Peter Simpson, the State Secretary of the ETU. The first of those Affidavits accompanies the Application and the second, affirmed on 12 December 2016, is Exhibit 2 in the proceedings. In the second of those Affidavits Mr Simpson attests to the fact that the ETU had, at the time of the filing of this application, 16,537 members and the AFULE had 1,131 members. [5] Thus the number of members of the AFULE was less than 25% of the members of the ETU at the time of filing of the Application. The membership of the AFULE totalled approximately 6.85% of the membership of the ETU. The scheme of the amalgamation proposes that the members of the AFULE become members of the proposed amalgamated industrial organisation. Thus the number of members of the proposed amalgamated organisation was not more than 25% of the number of members of the Applicant when this Application was filed. Thus the requirements of s 64(2) of the Regulation has been met. [6] The material filed in this Application meets all the requirements of s 64(3) of the Regulation. [7] As for s 64(4) of the Regulation, the ETU resolved to make the application by resolution of the State Executive on 8 August 2016. That resolution provides as follows: "4. the State Secretary be authorised to: … (c) make application for exemption from ballot of members of the ETUQ on the basis that the number of members of the AFULE are less than 25% of the number of members of the ETUQ; …" [8] In accordance with s 64(4)(b) of the Regulation, the ETU resolved to give notice to the members by resolution of the State Executive on 8 August 2016. That resolution provided as follows: "4. the State Secretary be authorised to: … (f) provide notice to the members, in accordance with the requirements of the Act of the application for exemption from the holding of an amalgamation ballot; ,,," [9] The State Secretary of the ETU notified each member of the making of the resolution by including the resolution in a copy of the "Electrical Worker" which was sent to all members of the ETU free of charge in the week commencing 7 November 2016. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 10] Section 86 of the Regulation provides: "86 Ballot exemption - number of members (1) This section applies at a hearing for a proposed amalgamation if a ballot exemption application under section 64 was filed with the ballot application for the amalgamation. (2) If the number of persons that could become members of the proposed amalgamated organisation is not more than 25% of the number of members of the applicant when the application was filed, the commission must allow the ballot exemption, unless it considers the exemption should be refused because of special circumstances. (3) If the commission gives the exemption, the organisation’s members are taken to have approved- (a) the proposed amalgamation; and (b) each proposed alternative amalgamation." Conclusion [11] The number of persons who could become members of the proposed amalgamated industrial organisation was not more than 25% of the number of members of the AFULE when the application was filed. No special circumstances have been identified that would warrant the exemption being refused. Further, the matters in section 86 of the Regulation have been met. [12] In those circumstances I approve an exemption for the ETU from the amalgamation ballot for members of the ETU and AFULE on the grounds that the additional number of persons that could become members of the proposed amalgamated organisation on amalgamation day is not more than 25% of the members of the ETU when the application was filed. -- 4 of 4 --