Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Alcatel-Lucent Australia Ltd

[2015] FWC 7118

[2015] FWC 7118

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia;
"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU);
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Alcatel-Lucent Australia Ltd
(B2015/1385)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE SYDNEY, 19 OCTOBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Alcatel-Lucent Australia Ltd.

[1] On 14 October 2015, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (the APESMA),the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)(the AMWU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the CEPU) made an application for a protected action ballot order. The application was made pursuant to section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in respect of members of the APSEMA, the AMWU and the CEPU, who are employees of Alcatel-Lucent Australia Ltd (the employer) whose employment is to be regulated by a proposed agreement to replace the Alcatel Lucent Employment Partnership Agreement 2009.

[2] The application seeks a ballot of employees of the employer who are members of the APESMA, the AMWU and the CEPU who would be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement. The application was supplemented with a Statement of Alison Rose dated 14 October 2015 (the Statement). In summary, the Statement provided information about events involving attempts made by the APESMA, the AMWU and the CEPU to reach agreement with the employer on the terms of a proposed enterprise agreement.

[3] The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received communication dated 15 October 2015 from the employer advising that the employer did not oppose the application.The application was listed for Hearing before the Commission in Sydney on 19 October 2015, at which time the following appearances were recorded:

● Mr Stephen Chippendall on behalf of the APESMA and the CEPU;

● Mr Joseph Lavelle Wilson on behalf of the AMWU; and

● Mr Damien Marshall of AI Group on behalf of Alcatel-Lucent Australia Ltd, along with Ms Emily Woog of Alcatel-Lucent Australia Ltd.

[4] In view of the materials filed including the Statement together with the submissions made on behalf of the APESMA, the AMWU and the CEPU during the Hearing, the Commission provided an extemporary determination of the application and this Decision is issued as confirmation of that determination.

[5] The determination of this matter is primarily governed by the provisions of section 443 of the Act. Section 443 is in the following terms:

“443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[6] In this instance I am satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with section 437 of the Act. Further, I am satisfied that the applicants have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. In addition, I am satisfied that the requirements of sections 438 and 440 of the Act have also been met.

[7] Therefore, pursuant to subsection 443(1) of the Act, the Commission must make a protected action ballot order. The Order shall be made in the terms as broadly sought by the applicants. Accordingly an Order [PR572968] is issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr S Chippendall appeared for the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia.

Mr J Lavelle Wilson appeared for the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union

Mr D Marshall, solicitor appeared for Alcatel-Lucent Australia Ltd along with Ms E Woog.

Hearing details:

2015.

Sydney:

October, 19.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR572966>