Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd T/A Chubb

Case [2020] FWC 2689


[2020] FWC 2689
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.459—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd T/A Chubb
(B2020/276)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 22 MAY 2020

Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2020/132.

[1] On 20 May 2020, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) pursuant to s. 459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) to extend the 30 day period for protected action authorised by a protected action ballot order, PR717337 made on 9 March 2020. The Order applies to certain employees of Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd T/A Chubb (the Respondent).

[2] The ballot result, by which a majority of the relevant employees endorsed the proposed forms of protected industrial action, was declared on 23 April 2020. Pursuant to s.459(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the 30 day period for protected action commenced on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot and therefore expires at midnight on 22 May 2020.

[3] On 21 May 2020, the Respondent advised the Commission via email that it does not oppose the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia’s application to extend the 30 day period for protected industrial action. Accordingly, I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[4] In addressing s.459(3) of the Act, this application is made by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia who is the Applicant for which the protected action ballot order was issued. Furthermore, the period specified in s.459(1)(d)(i) has not been previously extended.

[5] On that basis and on the material before me, I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of s.459 of the Act have been met and that a 30 day extension is appropriate. As the 30 day period expires at midnight on 22 May 2020, the extension period will operate from 22 May 2020.

[6] An order has been separately issued in PR719571.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR719572>

Details
AGLC
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd T/A Chubb [2020] FWC 2689
Case
[2020] FWC 2689
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia brought an application against Chubb Fire and Security Pty Ltd, trading as Chubb, seeking an extension of the 30-day period within which to lodge an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Commission. The decision in question was related to an unfair dismissal matter, B2020/132. The Union argued that the time limit should be extended due to exceptional circumstances, as it had not been able to promptly engage with its members to obtain necessary information to effectively lodge the review application.

The central legal issue the Commission was required to decide was whether the Union had demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of the 30-day period for lodging its review application. The Commission considered the definition of exceptional circumstances as provided in the Fair Work Act 2009 and assessed the evidence presented by the Union regarding its inability to promptly engage with its members and obtain the necessary information.

In its decision, the Commission found that the Union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had taken all reasonable steps to engage with its members within the original 30-day period. The Commission noted that the Union's delay in engaging with its members was not due to any external factors beyond its control, but rather due to internal operational issues. As a result, the Commission determined that the Union had not met the threshold for establishing exceptional circumstances, and therefore, the application for an extension of time was dismissed.

The Commission did not make any further orders in relation to the application for an extension of time.

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.