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

[2022] FWC 201

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

Suez Water Pty Ltd(B2022/39)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Suez Water Pty Ltd (Adelaide Service Delivery)

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 Suez Water Pty Ltd (Respondent).

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

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Simon Pisoni 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR737915.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

< PR737913>

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was presented with a case where the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia sought authorisation for a protected action ballot involving employees of Suez Water Pty Ltd (Adelaide Service Delivery). This application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which pertains to protected action ballots. The primary issue before the FWC was whether the union had met the statutory requirements to proceed with the ballot, including demonstrating genuine attempts to reach an agreement with the employer and fulfilling the notification time specified by the Act.

The court examined the declaration provided by Mr Simon Pisoni of the union, which detailed the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and confirmed that the union had genuinely been trying to reach an agreement. The FWC considered whether the union had fulfilled the conditions set out in section 443(1) of the Act. Given that the employer did not object to the application and the union had provided sufficient evidence of its efforts, the FWC concluded that the union had satisfied the necessary criteria.

Upon determining that the union had met the legislative requirements, the Deputy President issued an order allowing the protected action ballot to proceed. This decision was made without the need for a hearing, as the employer had not raised any objections. The court's decision was based on the materials presented, including the union's declaration and evidence of its bargaining efforts.

The FWC authorised the union to conduct the protected action ballot as requested. This authorisation was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, and an order was separately issued in PR737915, formalising the court's decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established