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

Case [2022] FWC 2032


[2022] FWC 2032

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

v

Citywide Utilities Pty Ltd T/A Gordon McKay
(B2022/1162)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Citywide Utilities Pty Ltd T/A Gordon McKay.

  1. This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Citywide Utilities Pty Ltd T/A Gordon McKay (Respondent).

  1. On 1 August 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Chelsea Hill 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.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR744389.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR744388>

Details
AGLC
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v [2022] FWC 2032
Case
[2022] FWC 2032
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Citywide Utilities Pty Ltd T/A Gordon McKay (the Respondent). The Applicant sought the order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, with the purpose of holding a ballot to potentially engage in protected industrial action due to ongoing negotiations that had not reached a satisfactory agreement. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the matter was decided by the Deputy President without a hearing.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Act were satisfied. The Court needed to consider if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the Applicant had met the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act. The Court was required to assess the evidence provided by the Applicant, which included a declaration from Ms Chelsea Hill, outlining the bargaining process and the Applicant's genuine attempts to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

Upon reviewing the material, the Deputy President found that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Court was satisfied that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Consequently, the Deputy President determined that the requirements for a protected action ballot order were met, and the application was successful. An order was issued separately in PR744389, granting the Applicant permission to hold a ballot for potential protected industrial action.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order, allowing the employees of Citywide Utilities Pty Ltd T/A Gordon McKay to potentially engage in protected industrial action due to the ongoing negotiations that had not reached a satisfactory agreement. The Deputy President found that the requirements for such an order were met, based on the evidence provided by the Applicant. The Court's decision was made without a hearing, as the Respondent did not object to the application.

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.