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
Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited
(B2018/152)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 MARCH 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited.

[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 Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 9 March 2018 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 Rogers 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 PR601038.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia contested a decision by Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited to prevent a proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving this dispute, specifically under section 244 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that Castlemaine Perkins had unlawfully interfered with the employees' right to organise and conduct a ballot for protected industrial action, which is a fundamental aspect of workplace relations.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Castlemaine Perkins had genuinely taken all reasonable steps to facilitate the Union's proposed ballot. The Union contended that the company's actions amounted to an unlawful interference with the employees' right to organise, while Castlemaine Perkins maintained that it had provided all necessary information and logistical support to ensure the ballot could proceed smoothly. The Commission had to determine if the company had met its obligations under the Fair Work Act to facilitate a lawful industrial action process.

The Fair Work Commission found that Castlemaine Perkins had not genuinely taken all reasonable steps to facilitate the ballot. The Commission was particularly critical of the company's failure to provide adequate information and resources to the Union, which hindered the employees' ability to conduct a lawful ballot. As a result, the Commission ruled in favour of the Union, finding that Castlemaine Perkins had indeed interfered with the employees' right to organise. The Commission ordered the company to take all necessary steps to facilitate the ballot and to compensate the Union for any costs incurred due to the company's actions.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established