Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 470

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

Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd

(B2022/140)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) 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 Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 2 March 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 Christopher John Clark 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 PR738952.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide whether the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) could conduct a ballot of employees of Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd (the Employer) for protected action. The Union applied for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union sought the order in relation to employees of the Employer who were party to an existing enterprise agreement that was due to expire on 1 January 2022. The Union claimed that it had been trying to reach a new agreement with the Employer, but that it had been unable to do so.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the Union had genuinely been trying to reach an agreement with the Employer, and whether the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. The Union provided a declaration from its representative, Mr Christopher John Clark, setting out the steps it had taken in bargaining with the Employer, and stating that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer. The Union also provided evidence that it had met the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement.

The court was satisfied that the Union had genuinely been trying to reach an agreement with the Employer, and that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. The court noted that the Employer did not object to the application, and that it had decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. The court concluded that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been met, and made an order in favour of the Union. The court separately issued an order in PR738952.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established