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 & Security Pty Ltd
(B2021/106)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 1 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 1 March 2021, the 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 declaration of Theo Samartzopoulos of the CEPU made on 23 February 2021, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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] Based on the reasons in Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd 1, the order is made without the inclusion of the final question sought in the draft order.

[6] An Order has been separately issued in PR727362.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 [2021] FWC 645.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Chubb, a security services company, in order to determine if they wished to take industrial action. Chubb contested the union's right to conduct the ballot, arguing that it had already certified a different union as the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees in question.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the union had the legal authority to conduct the ballot, given that another union had been certified as the exclusive bargaining agent. The Commission had to determine the appropriate scope of the certified bargaining agent's authority and whether the union's proposed ballot fell within the bounds of that authority. This involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and considering the principles of industrial relations law.

The Commission found that the union's proposed ballot was within the scope of the certified bargaining agent's authority, as the ballot was intended to gauge employee sentiment regarding potential industrial action. The Commission emphasised that the certified bargaining agent's authority did not preclude other unions from engaging with employees on matters related to potential industrial action, as long as the actions did not undermine the certified agent's authority. The Commission also noted the importance of ensuring that employees had the opportunity to express their views on potential industrial action. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, allowing it to proceed with the proposed ballot.

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