[2016] FWC 233
DECISION
| Fair Work Act 2009 |
| s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order |
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal,
Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions
(B2016/161)
| COMMISSIONER RYAN | MELBOURNE, 13 JANUARY 2016 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited trading as
Australian Munitions.
[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied
Services Union of Australia (CEPU) for a protected action ballot in relation to employees of
Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions (the Respondent). The application was
made on 11 January 2016.
[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.
[3] Section 443(1) of the Act says:
443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order
(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed
enterprise agreement if:
(a) an application has been made under section 437; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying
to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be
balloted.
[4] The CEPU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in
a Statutory Declaration declared by Mr Damian King, an Official of the CEPU.
[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that,
accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided
by the CEPU.
| COMMISSIONER |
[2016] FWC 233
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR576056>
- AGLC
- Application by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2016] FWC 233
- Case
- [2016] FWC 233
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commissioner were whether the CEPU had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act for the making of a protected action ballot order. Specifically, the Commissioner had to determine if the CEPU had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer and if the statutory requirements for the ballot had been satisfied. The CEPU had demonstrated its efforts through a Statutory Declaration by Mr Damian King, an Official of the CEPU.
Commissioner Ryan found that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The CEPU had provided satisfactory evidence of its genuine attempts to negotiate with the employer. Given the Respondent's non-opposition to the ballot, the Commissioner was satisfied that the statutory conditions for the ballot were fulfilled. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that the order must be made and proceeded to issue an Order based on the draft provided by the CEPU.
The Commissioner issued an Order for the protected action ballot to proceed, as per the draft provided by the CEPU. The Order was issued in accordance with the statutory requirements and the evidence presented by the CEPU.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.