Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Bekaert Wire Ropes Pty Ltd T/A BBRG Australia

[2018] FWC 6685

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

Bekaert Wire Ropes Pty Ltd T/A BBRG Australia

(B2018/993)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 29 OCTOBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bekaert Wire Ropes 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 Bekaert Wire Ropes Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 29 October 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr D McKinley 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 PR701865.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Bekaert Wire Ropes Pty Ltd, trading as BBRG Australia. The Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees for the purpose of organising protected industrial action. Bekaert Wire Ropes Pty Ltd sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Union from proceeding with the ballot, arguing that the ballot was unlawful and would cause significant harm to the company's operations. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot of employees was lawful and whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the Union from proceeding with the ballot. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the precedent set by previous cases in this area of law. The court also had to weigh the potential harm to the company's operations against the Union's right to organise industrial action.

The court found that the proposed ballot was lawful and that an injunction should not be granted. The court held that the Union had followed the correct procedures in organising the ballot and that the ballot was not likely to cause significant harm to the company's operations. The court noted that the Union had provided detailed information to the company about the proposed ballot and had taken steps to minimise any potential disruption to the company's operations. The court also found that the company had not demonstrated that the proposed ballot would cause significant harm to its operations.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the Union had a lawful right to organise industrial action and that the company had not demonstrated that the proposed ballot would cause significant harm to its operations. The court's decision was consistent with the precedent set by previous cases in this area of law.

The final orders of the court were that the Union could proceed with the proposed ballot of employees and that the company's application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The court also ordered the company to pay the Union's costs of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established