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

[2022] FWC 2439

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

Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd T/A Chubb Fire & Security

(B2022/1369)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 13 SEPTEMBER 2022

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

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 Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd T/A Chubb Fire & Security (Respondent).

On 13 September 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Christopher John Clark 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR745787.

DEPUTY 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, seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made without objection from the respondent. The Deputy President, Clancy, determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issue that the Commission was required to decide was whether the union had met the criteria for a protected action ballot under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union had to demonstrate that it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission had to consider the material before it, including the declaration of Mr Christopher John Clark of the Applicant, which set out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer.

The Deputy President was satisfied that the union had met the criteria for a protected action ballot. The union had provided evidence of its attempts to reach an agreement with the employer, and it was found that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Deputy President issued an order in PR745787.

This decision highlights the importance of providing evidence of genuine bargaining efforts when seeking a protected action ballot. The Commission will consider the material before it and make a decision based on the evidence provided. In this case, the union was successful in its application, and the Deputy President issued an order for a protected action ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established