DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd
(B2021/1021)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 22 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ausgrid Management 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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 21 October 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Darran Miller of the Applicant declared on 20 August 2021, 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 PR735163.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court heard a case brought by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia against Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd. The Union sought an order requiring the company to conduct a ballot of its employees to determine if they would support protected industrial action. The Union alleged that the company had failed to negotiate in good faith and had engaged in conduct that could potentially undermine the employees' ability to organise and take industrial action. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Union's claims had merit and whether the company was required to facilitate a ballot of its employees.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the company's conduct had indeed undermined the employees' capacity to organise and participate in industrial action. The Union argued that the company had failed to engage in good faith negotiations, had made misleading statements to employees, and had taken actions that had the potential to intimidate employees and discourage them from participating in the ballot. The company, on the other hand, argued that it had acted lawfully and in the best interests of its employees.

In its decision, the court found that the Union's claims had merit and that the company had indeed engaged in conduct that had the potential to undermine the employees' ability to organise and participate in industrial action. The court held that the company's conduct had been unreasonable and that it had failed to engage in good faith negotiations with the Union. The court found that the company had made misleading statements to employees, had taken actions that could be perceived as intimidating, and had failed to provide the Union with information that was necessary for it to effectively represent its members. The court ordered the company to facilitate a ballot of its employees to determine if they would support protected industrial action.

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