| [2018] FWC 2693 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| 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
(B2018/335)
| Deputy President Asbury | BRISBANE, 14 MAY 2018 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of WH Heck & Sons Pty Ltd.
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 WH Heck & Sons Pty Ltd T/A Rocky Points Sugar Mill (the Employer).
On 9 May 2018 correspondence was received from the Employer advising that it while it does not consent to the application, it does not oppose it. The Employer also sought clarification from the CEPU that the application would cover only members of the CEPU.
Correspondence was subsequently received from the CEPU confirming the application relates to only members of the CEPU, and requesting the matter be determined on the basis of the filed material. The Employer agreed that the matter could be determined on that basis.
On the basis that the Employer does not object to the application, and after considering the information set out in the application and the accompanying Form F34B statutory declaration of Mr Beau Malone, Union Organiser, 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 [PR607063] will issue at the same time as this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR607062>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2018] FWC 2693
- Case
- [2018] FWC 2693
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Union's proposed ballot was valid under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the ballot notice complied with the requirements set forth in the Act and whether there were any procedural or substantive flaws that would invalidate the ballot. The company argued that the ballot notice did not adequately inform employees of the potential consequences of the proposed action and that the ballot did not serve a genuine industrial purpose.
In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the Union's ballot notice did not meet the statutory requirements. The Commission held that the notice was deficient in failing to provide employees with sufficient information about the potential impact of the proposed action on their employment conditions. Additionally, the Commission concluded that the ballot did not serve a genuine industrial purpose, as it was not directed towards resolving a genuine dispute between the Union and the employer. As a result, the Commission disallowed the ballot and dismissed the Union's application.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot by the Union be disallowed and that no further action be taken to conduct the ballot. The company was also directed to provide written confirmation to the Union that the ballot would not proceed. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that ballot notices comply with the statutory requirements and that any proposed industrial action genuinely serves an industrial purpose.
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.