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 (Qld) Pty Ltd
(B2018/460)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 8 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of City Facilities Management (Qld) 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 (Qld) 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 PR608021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia versus City Facilities Management (Qld) Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to decide on a dispute involving proposed industrial action by employees of City Facilities Management. The union intended to conduct a ballot to gauge the employees' support for protected action, which the employer contested on the grounds of potential harm to public health and safety.

The central legal issue revolved around the threshold for the Commission to intervene in a proposed industrial action ballot. The employer argued that the ballot, if conducted, would cause harm to public health and safety, which under section 44 of the Fair Work Act, could justify the Commission in refusing authorisation for the ballot. The union contended that the employer's concerns were speculative and not sufficient to warrant intervention.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties. It determined that the employer had not demonstrated that the proposed ballot would result in imminent harm to public health and safety. The Commission was not persuaded that the potential harm was certain, nor that the harm would be significant. As a result, the Commission found that the employer's arguments did not meet the threshold required for it to refuse authorisation of the ballot. The authorisation was therefore granted, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot.

The final orders of the Commission were that the authorisation for the proposed industrial action ballot be granted, with specific conditions to ensure that any action taken would not result in harm to public health and safety. The employer was directed to facilitate the conduct of the ballot in accordance with the Fair Work Act.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v City Facilities Management (Qld) 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