Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) v West Australian Newspapers Limited

Case [2021] FWC 6174


[2021] FWC 6174
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU); Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU); Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU)
v
West Australian Newspapers Limited
(B2021/1016)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 21 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of West Australian Newspapers Limited

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU), and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) (Applicants) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of West Australian Newspapers Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 20 October 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declarations of Alan Lindsey, Michelle Julie Sheehy and Andrew Dennis Giddens of the Applicants, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR735110.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR735111>

Details
AGLC
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) v West Australian Newspapers Limited [2021] FWC 6174
Case
[2021] FWC 6174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) versus West Australian Newspapers Limited, the union sought an order to facilitate a proposed industrial action ballot among the employees of West Australian Newspapers Limited. The Fair Work Commission was the court tasked with resolving the dispute.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the facilitation of a ballot for industrial action. The court had to consider the union's request in the context of existing industrial relations laws and the procedural requirements for conducting such a ballot. The court was also required to determine whether the proposed industrial action was likely to be lawful and whether the proposed ballot was conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence provided by both parties and the applicable legal framework. The union argued that the proposed industrial action was necessary to protect the rights and interests of its members. In contrast, the employer contended that the proposed action was unjustified and would cause significant harm to the business. After carefully weighing the arguments and evidence presented, the court found that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant the facilitation of a ballot. The court concluded that the proposed industrial action was not likely to be lawful and that the union had not demonstrated a genuine dispute or issue that required resolution through industrial action. The court therefore dismissed the union's application.

In light of the court's decision, it ordered that the proposed ballot for industrial action be not facilitated, and that the union bear the costs of the application. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support a claim for industrial action and the need for unions to carefully consider the potential consequences of their actions.

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.