| [2018] FWC 3412 |
| 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
City Facilities Management (AUS) Pty Ltd
(B2018/459)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 8 JUNE 2018 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of City Facilities Management (AUS) Pty Ltd.
[1] This is an application by the “Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia” known as the CEPU (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of City Facilities Management (AUS) Pty Ltd (Respondent).
[2] On 8 June 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.
[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr D Mier 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 PR608015.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR608014>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v City Facilities Management (Aus) Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 3412
- Case
- [2018] FWC 3412
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union was required to provide City Facilities Management with specific details of the proposed industrial action in order to conduct a lawful ballot. This required the Commission to consider the obligations of unions under the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to the provision of information to employers before conducting a protected action ballot. The Commission also needed to assess whether the union's failure to provide detailed information constituted a breach of the Act, and if so, whether this was a sufficient ground to prevent the ballot from proceeding.
The Fair Work Commission held that the union was not required to provide detailed information about the proposed industrial action to City Facilities Management before conducting the ballot. The Commission emphasised that the Act imposes a general obligation on unions to provide employers with information necessary to enable them to respond to a proposed ballot, but this does not extend to requiring the union to disclose the specific details of the proposed action. The Commission found that the union's failure to provide detailed information did not prevent the ballot from proceeding, as the employer had sufficient information to enable meaningful consultation and response. Consequently, the Commission upheld the union's right to conduct the ballot without further disclosure to the employer.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union was permitted to proceed with the proposed ballot of its members employed by City Facilities Management, without the need to provide further information to the employer. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of unions to organise and the obligations of employers to be informed and to consult, within the framework established by the Fair Work Act.
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.