Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Chelgrave Contracting Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 3187


[2022] FWC 3187

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

Chelgrave Contracting Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/1786)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 DECEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chelgrave Contracting 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 Chelgrave Contracting Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

  1. On 1 December 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Chelsea Hill McIntosh 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.

  1. The Applicant sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Vero Engagement & Voting Solutions Pty Ltd (Vero). I am satisfied that Vero is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Vero is capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. Vero has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and is bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

  1. Therefore I appoint Vero as the protected action ballot agent.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR748528.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748527>

Details
AGLC
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Chelgrave Contracting Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 3187
Case
[2022] FWC 3187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Chelgrave Contracting Australia Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer did not oppose the application, and the Deputy President determined the matter on the papers without a hearing. The Union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer and had complied with the notification time and section 443(1) of the Act.

The Union sought to appoint Vero Engagement & Voting Solutions Pty Ltd as the ballot agent for the protected action ballot, rather than the Australian Electoral Commission. The employer did not oppose the appointment of Vero as the ballot agent. The Deputy President was satisfied that Vero was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot, that it was capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. Vero had also agreed to be bound by the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

The Deputy President appointed Vero as the protected action ballot agent. An order was separately issued in PR748528. The decision was made on 2 December 2022 in Melbourne. This decision provides a clear and concise summary of the case, the legal issues, and the court's reasoning and outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.