THE MARITIME Union of Australia (MUA) is planning to take Protected Action against Pilbara Ports.
A social media post claimed that after several months of protracted EA negotiations Pilbara Ports had been unwilling to negotiate on claims for two replacement agreements across the Pilbara.
The MUA had filed a Protected Action Ballot Order against Pilbara Ports.
A spokesperson for Pilbara Ports said it was committed to continuing negotiations in accordance with the State Wages Policy and in alignment with other Western Australian port authorities.
“The bargaining process with employees and union representatives will continue in good faith with the next negotiation meeting occurring on 29 July 2025,” the spokesperson said.
The MUA said bargaining had begun at Port Hedland in November 2024 and the company had adopted a fixed position and was not willing to change its position or to negotiate with their workforce.
MUA North West organiser Joel O’Brien said Pilbara Ports continually blamed the state government and its Public Sector Wages Policy for the inability to reach an agreement.
“They cry poor in negotiation meetings with the union and say the complete opposite to the state government during recent state budget submissions,” Mr O’Brien said.
“We find it incredibly hard to believe that they can’t meet our claims,” Mr O’Brien said.
The union said it filed a bargaining dispute at the Fair Work Commission to seek mediation by Deputy President Binet. That application was later discontinued. The MUA said this was because Pilbara Ports "refused to engage in any meaningful way"
“In May 2025, the company put a non-union agreement out to vote in Port Hedland which received a majority No vote. Instead of returning to the table to seek to fix the outstanding issues, the company pulled their offer off the table and put forward a second-rate offer that was worse than their first.
He said the company had sent mixed messages about its reasons for not reaching agreement and claimed it had attempted to shift the blame onto the government.
“After the union dismissed the company’s attempt to portray the government as the problem, the company filed its own bargaining dispute at the FWC,” Mr O’Brien said.
The union said that in preparation for this, it put forward a proposal within the company’s cost parameters, provided certain improved conditions were met. It claimed it had not received a formal response several weeks later, prompting the membership to endorse filing a Protected Action Ballot Order.
The ballot will cover the Utah Point Bulk Handling Facility, which the union claims will affect Atlas Iron and Mineral Resources iron ore exports.
Further Protected Industrial Action is also expected to be filed for Eastern Harbour in Port Hedland and Dampier Cargo Wharf, which the union said would impact a wide range of imports and exports in both ports.
The Pilbara Ports spokesperson reiterated its commitment to ongoing negotiations and said operations at the Utah Bulk Handling Facility would continue as usual.
“Given the supporting role that these employees perform within the port, any protected action would have no impact on port operations,” they said.