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

[2022] FWC 203

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(B2022/40)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Suez Water Pty Ltd

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 PR737923.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

< PR737922>

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Suez Water Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union sought the order to facilitate a ballot of its members regarding potential protected industrial action. The dispute arose from ongoing negotiations between the union and the employer, aimed at reaching an agreement concerning employment terms and conditions.

The central legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the union had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot, specifically whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and if the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer. The union submitted a declaration from its representative, Mr Simon Pisoni, asserting that they had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and had taken the necessary steps in bargaining with Suez Water Pty Ltd.

The Deputy President determined the matter on the papers, as the employer did not object to the application. The court was satisfied with the union’s declaration and the evidence presented, concluding that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were met. Consequently, the Deputy President decided to grant the union’s application for a protected action ballot order. An order was separately issued in PR737923.

The court’s decision authorised the union to proceed with a ballot of its members to determine whether to engage in protected industrial action. The order reflects the union's compliance with the statutory obligations necessary for such a ballot to be lawful.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established