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

[2021] FWC 6512

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
v
Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd T/A Chubb Fire & Security
(B2021/1186)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 6 DECEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CHUBB Fire & Security Pty Ltd T/A CHUBB Fire & Security

[1] This is an application by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, 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).

[2] On 3 December 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 Mr 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR736449.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd. The union sought to conduct a ballot of the company's employees to determine whether they would take protected action. Chubb opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not necessary and that the union had not provided sufficient information to justify it. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the union had provided adequate information to justify the proposed ballot and whether the ballot was necessary. The union argued that it had a right to conduct a ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), while Chubb contended that the union had not met the requirements of the Act and that the ballot was not necessary. The court had to determine whether the union had provided enough information to justify the ballot and whether the ballot was necessary to protect the employees' rights.

The court found that the union had not provided sufficient information to justify the proposed ballot. It held that the union had not met the requirements of section 319 of the Fair Work Act, which sets out the circumstances in which a ballot may be held. The court also found that the ballot was not necessary to protect the employees' rights, as there were no immediate threats to their employment or conditions of work. Consequently, the union's application for an order to compel Chubb to facilitate the ballot was dismissed.

The court ordered that the union pay Chubb's costs of the proceedings. This included the costs associated with the application for an order to compel the company to facilitate the ballot. The union was also ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis, meaning that it had to pay all of the company's costs, regardless of whether they were reasonably incurred or not.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established