DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia - Electrical, Energy & Services Division SA Branch (CEPU)

v
ENGIE Fire Protection Pty Limited
(B2021/1009)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 18 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ENGIE Fire Protection Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia Electrical, Energy & Services Division SA Branch (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ENGIE Fire Protection Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 18 October 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Erin Hennessy of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, 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 PR735008.

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 - Electrical, Energy & Services Division SA Branch and Engie Fire Protection Pty Limited was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought approval for a protected action ballot to be held among the employees of Engie Fire Protection Pty Limited. The company opposed the ballot on the grounds that it believed the proposed action was unprotected and thus illegal. The central legal issues revolved around whether the proposed industrial action was protected under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements necessary to conduct a lawful ballot. The court had to determine whether the industrial action was in fact protected and whether the union had followed the requisite procedures to hold a legitimate ballot.

The Fair Work Commission considered whether the proposed industrial action constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act. It evaluated whether the action was genuinely related to the employees' employment terms and conditions or workplace grievances. Furthermore, the court examined the union's compliance with the notification and procedural requirements as stipulated in the Act. It assessed whether the union had provided adequate notice to the employer and whether the ballot process adhered to the legal standards for a lawful vote. The Commission weighed the evidence presented by both parties and deliberated on the implications of the proposed action on the employees' right to take industrial action.

After thorough consideration, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the proposed industrial action was indeed protected and that the union had met the necessary procedural requirements. The Commission found that the employees' grievances were directly related to their employment conditions and that the union had properly notified the employer and conducted the ballot in accordance with the Act. Consequently, the Commission granted the union's application for approval of the protected action ballot. The decision affirmed the employees' right to organise and take lawful industrial action, provided that it complied with the statutory framework.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia - Electrical, Energy & Services Division SA Branch (CEPU) v Engie Fire Protection Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established