Application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Re Utilities Management Pty Ltd)

The parties involved in the application were the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, acting on behalf of the employees of Utilities Management Pty Ltd, and the employer, Utilities Management Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the employer's issuance of a second National Emergency Response Register (NERR) that covered only a subset of the workforce, after protracted negotiations for an agreement that would encompass the entire workforce. The union applied for a bargaining order and a scope order, asserting that the employer had unfairly chosen the bargaining group and breached obligations of good faith bargaining.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the larger group of employees and the sub-set group chosen by the employer were fairly selected, whether the employer had violated the good faith bargaining obligations, and if it was reasonable in the circumstances to make a scope order. The court examined the processes and decisions made by the employer in choosing the bargaining groups and assessed whether these choices were made in good faith and were fair. The union argued that the employer's actions were unreasonable and in breach of good faith, while the employer contended that both groups were fairly chosen and that there was no breach of obligations.

The court found that both the larger group and the sub-set group were fairly chosen by the employer. The employer had acted in good faith and had not breached any obligations. The court also determined that it was not reasonable to make a scope order as it would compromise the existing bargaining process. Consequently, the scope application was dismissed, and the bargaining application was also dismissed, with no breach of good faith bargaining found on the part of the employer.

The final orders of the court were that the applications for a bargaining order and a scope order were dismissed. The court did not find any breach of good faith bargaining by the employer and concluded that it was not reasonable to compromise the existing bargaining process by making a scope order.