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

[2013] FWC 7755

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
(B2013/1272)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Redfern Flinn Cranes & Hoisting Equipment Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) employed by Redfern Flinn Cranes & Hoisting Equipment Pty Ltd (the employer).

[2] Ms Lisa Cartledge, Group Performance Improvement Manager for the employer, has advised my chambers that the employer does not oppose this application.

[3] The CEPU has filed a Statutory Declaration of Colin Williams, official of the CEPU, in support of this application. I am satisfied that the CEPU has demonstrated that it has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer.

[4] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the CEPU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, the Fair Work Commission addressed a dispute regarding a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of Redfern Flinn Cranes & Hoisting Equipment Pty Ltd. The employees, represented by the union, sought to conduct a protected action ballot to seek improved terms and conditions of employment. The employer contested the ballot, raising objections on several grounds, including the nature of the proposed industrial action and compliance with statutory requirements.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections concerning protected industrial action and the procedural requirements for balloting. The central question was whether the union had complied with all necessary legislative provisions to lawfully hold the ballot, and if the proposed action was protected under the Act. The employer argued that the ballot notice was defective and that the proposed action did not meet the criteria for protected action.

The Commission examined the union's compliance with the procedural requirements for protected action, including the content of the ballot notice and the nature of the proposed action. It was determined that the union had sufficiently complied with the legislative requirements. The Commission found that the proposed action was lawful and protected under the Act, given the employees' legitimate workplace grievances and the union's adherence to the necessary procedures. Consequently, the employer's objections were dismissed, and the proposed ballot was deemed lawful.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union could proceed with the proposed protected action ballot, subject to the union providing the employer with the required details in accordance with the Act. The employer was directed to facilitate the ballot process in accordance with the Commission's decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established