DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd
(B2021/191)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 25 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, Electrical Division, Qld and NT Divisional Branch (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 Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 24 March 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 Craig Thomas of the Applicant declared on 19 March 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 PR728109.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) sought to conduct a ballot of its members who are employees of Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd (the Employer) for the purpose of organising protected action. The Employer opposed the Union's application on the basis that the Union was not appropriately registered as a relevant union for the employees, and that the ballot would be unlawful. The dispute was heard and determined by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union was the appropriate union to organise the proposed industrial action, given the complexities of the industrial relationship between the Employer and the employees. The Union argued that it was the appropriate union to organise the industrial action as its members were employed by the Employer under agreements that were covered by the Union's registration as a relevant union. The Employer contended that the Union was not the appropriate union as the employees were engaged under different contracts of employment, and that the Union's registration was not broad enough to cover the employees in question.

The Full Bench found that the Union was the appropriate union to organise the proposed industrial action. The Commission determined that the Union's registration was sufficiently broad to cover the employees in question, and that the Union had the necessary authority to organise the proposed industrial action. The Commission also found that the proposed ballot did not contravene any provisions of the Fair Work Act. Accordingly, the Union's application was approved.

The Full Bench ordered that the Union be permitted to conduct a ballot of its members employed by the Employer for the purpose of organising protected action, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Commission's decision. The Employer was directed to facilitate the conduct of the ballot in accordance with the decision.

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