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
(B2016/369)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 16 MARCH 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Beavis & Bartels Pty Ltd.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the CEPU). The CEPU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Beavis & Bartels Pty Ltd (the Employer).

[2] I directed that my Associate write to the parties requesting that the Employer advise whether it objected to the Commission considering the application and making the protected action ballot order in the terms of the draft order.

[3] On Wednesday, 16 March 2016, Mr Wayne Smith of Master Plumbers Queensland, the representative of the Employer, contacted the Commission to confirm that the Employer did not intend to contest the application based on the statutory requirements.

[4] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[5] The CEPU has filed an affidavit of Mr Gary O'Halloran in support of the application. Mr Gary O'Halloran is the State Secretary of the CEPU – Plumbing Division, Queensland & Northern Territory Divisional Branch. Mr Gary O'Halloran is the Branch Official with responsibility for representing the industrial interests of members employed by the Employer.

[6] I am satisfied that there has been a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that bargaining has commenced. Further, I am satisfied that the requirements in ss443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR578066] based largely on the draft provided by the CEPU will issue at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Beavis & Bartels Pty Ltd. The union sought authorisation for a protected action ballot of its members employed by Beavis & Bartels, which included employees who were part of the retail and automotive sectors. The dispute centred on the union's intention to conduct a ballot among its members to ascertain their willingness to engage in protected industrial action. Beavis & Bartels contested the union's request, arguing that the proposed ballot did not meet the statutory requirements and could potentially prejudice its business operations.

The legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the union had satisfied the procedural prerequisites for conducting a ballot and if the proposed ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had provided sufficient information to its members to enable them to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot, and if the ballot notice was clear and accurate. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the proposed action would cause significant economic harm to Beavis & Bartels and its customers.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had met the necessary procedural requirements for conducting a ballot. It was determined that the union had provided adequate information to its members and that the ballot notice was clear and accurate. The court concluded that the proposed action did not pose a significant risk of economic harm to Beavis & Bartels or its customers. Consequently, the Commission authorised the union to proceed with the ballot among its members. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the union's compliance with the statutory obligations and the potential impact of the proposed action on the employer and its stakeholders.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established