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
(B2019/1229)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 25 OCTOBER 2019

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 25 October 2019, 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 Michael Wiech of the CEPU declared on 23 October 2019, 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] An Order has been separately issued in PR713711.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd involved a dispute between a union and an employer over the proposed conduct of a protected action ballot. The union sought to conduct a ballot of employees, and the employer contested the union's proposed method. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the union's proposed method for conducting the ballot complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the union's approach to conducting the ballot was in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether it was appropriate and reasonable given the circumstances. The employer argued that the union's proposed method was not suitable, while the union contended that it was necessary to ensure the integrity of the ballot process.

In delivering its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the union's proposed method for conducting the ballot did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court held that the union's approach was not appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. The union's proposed method did not adequately address the employer's concerns about the integrity and fairness of the ballot process. As a result, the Fair Work Commission rejected the union's proposed method and directed the parties to engage in further negotiations to determine an acceptable method for conducting the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission's final orders included a direction for the parties to continue negotiations in good faith to reach an agreement on the method for conducting the ballot. The court emphasised the importance of the parties working together to ensure that the ballot process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner, in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

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