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
(B2015/603)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 17 JUNE 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of FNQ Sugar Services 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 FNQ Sugar Services Pty Ltd (the Employer).

[2] On 16 June 2015 my Associate, at my request, wrote to the Employer requesting their view in relation to the application. That correspondence advised the Employer as follows:

“If no response is received, the Deputy President will consider that the [Employer] does not wish to be heard and will consider the applications on the basis of the materials filed in the Commission, which may result in the Order being issued in the terms sought.”

[3] No response has been received from the Employer. Consistent with my correspondence I have decided to determine the matter on the basis of the material filed as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[4] The CEPU has filed a Statement of Mr Michael Haire in support of the application. Mr Haire is the Organiser who has responsibility for representing the industrial interests of members of the CEPU employed by the Employer at the South Johnstone Mill.

[5] On the basis of the information contained in Mr Harie’s Statement and the application 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 [PR568407] based on the draft provided by the CEPU will issue at the same time as this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and FNQ Sugar Services Pty Ltd was heard before the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of FNQ Sugar Services Pty Ltd, who are engaged in industrial activities. FNQ Sugar Services Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, raising concerns about the potential disruption to their operations.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had provided sufficient evidence to justify the need for a protected action ballot and whether such a ballot would cause undue harm to the employer's business operations. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to explore the employees' willingness to take industrial action, while the employer contended that the ballot would unduly disrupt their business and cause significant financial harm.

In its decision, the Commission considered the evidence provided by both parties. It determined that the union had demonstrated a reasonable basis for the proposed ballot, as there were unresolved issues that warranted exploring the employees' support for potential industrial action. However, the Commission also recognised the employer's concerns about operational disruption and financial harm. Balancing these considerations, the Commission authorised the union to conduct the ballot but imposed specific conditions to minimise the impact on the employer's business, including limiting the duration and timing of the ballot.

The final orders of the Commission allowed the union to proceed with the protected action ballot under the specified conditions, ensuring that the employees' rights to organise and take industrial action were protected while also mitigating the potential harm to the employer's operations.

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