DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd
(B2020/534)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chubb Fire and Security 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 (“the ETU”) (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 Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 17 September 2020, 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 Beau Malone of the Applicant declared on 15 September 2020, 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 PR722896.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission was an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) for an authorisation to hold a ballot of employees of Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd (Chubb) to determine whether the employees wished to take protected action. The dispute centred on the employees' proposed protected action, which involved a strike in relation to their employment conditions. The Union sought authorisation for the ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues before the Commission included whether the Union had complied with the procedural requirements for holding a protected action ballot and whether the proposed action was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment or an existing dispute.

The Fair Work Commission considered whether the Union had satisfied the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act, including the need for the Union to provide Chubb with a written notice of the proposed protected action and the proposed dates of the ballot. The Commission also considered whether the proposed protected action was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment or an existing dispute. The Union argued that the proposed protected action was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment and that the procedural requirements had been met. Chubb argued that the Union had not complied with the procedural requirements and that the proposed protected action was not related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment.

The Fair Work Commission found that the Union had complied with the procedural requirements for holding a protected action ballot. The Commission also found that the proposed protected action was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment. The Commission noted that the Union had provided Chubb with a written notice of the proposed protected action and the proposed dates of the ballot, and that the proposed action was related to the employees' employment conditions. The Commission concluded that the Union had satisfied the requirements for holding a protected action ballot and authorised the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission authorised the Union to hold a ballot of the employees of Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd to determine whether the employees wished to take protected action in relation to their employment conditions. The authorisation is subject to the Union providing Chubb with a copy of the ballot notice and the results of the ballot. The Commission also noted that the authorisation did not prevent Chubb from taking any appropriate action in relation to the proposed protected action.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Chubb Fire and Security 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