DECISION

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

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2017/780)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 31 AUGUST 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Broadspectrum (Australia) 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 31 August 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr G Glover 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR595763.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from a proposed ballot of employees of Broadspectrum regarding protected action. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is a tribunal with jurisdiction over employment-related matters in Australia. The Union sought an order for Broadspectrum to facilitate a ballot of its employees concerning protected action. The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the Union had satisfied the requirements to conduct a lawful ballot.

The court examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to determine the conditions under which a ballot could be conducted. It considered whether Broadspectrum had acted in a manner that would frustrate or impede the ballot, and whether the Union had provided sufficient information to justify the proposed ballot. The court found that Broadspectrum had not acted in a manner that would impede the ballot, and that the Union had not provided sufficient information to warrant the proposed ballot. The court held that the Union had not satisfied the requirements to conduct a lawful ballot under the Fair Work Act.

The court ordered that Broadspectrum was not required to facilitate the proposed ballot of its employees. The Union's application for an order was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of providing adequate information to justify a ballot and the need for unions and employers to comply with the provisions of the Fair Work Act when engaging in protected action. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that all parties involved in protected action adhere to the legal requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Broadspectrum (Australia) 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