DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
AE Smith & Sons Pty Ltd
(B2018/938)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 16 OCTOBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of AE Smith & Sons Pty Ltd.

[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 AE Smith & Sons Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 16 October 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr M Anderson 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 PR701389.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia versus AE Smith & Sons Pty Ltd was heard before the Fair Work Commission. The union sought authorisation for a protected action ballot among the employees of AE Smith & Sons Pty Ltd, which included the right to strike. The company contested the union's request, asserting that it would lead to significant operational disruptions and financial losses.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot met the criteria set out under the Fair Work Act 2009 for a lawful industrial action. The union argued that the employees had legitimate grievances concerning their employment conditions, which warranted a protected action ballot. Conversely, the company contended that the ballot would result in considerable operational disruptions and financial harm, which outweighed the employees' grievances.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the employees' grievances and the potential impact of the proposed industrial action on the company's operations. The Commission concluded that while the employees had legitimate concerns, the proposed industrial action would cause substantial disruption and financial loss to the company. As a result, the Commission denied the union's application for a protected action ballot.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v AE Smith & Sons Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established