Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Clarence Coal Pty Limited

[2022] FWC 3297

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

Clarence Coal Pty Limited

(B2022/1824)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 14 DECEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Clarence Coal Pty Limited

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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Clarence Coal Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 14 December 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Nicholas Bligh of the Applicant declared on 12 December 2022, 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 PR748934.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia sought a protected action ballot order from the Fair Work Commission against Clarence Coal Pty Limited. The Union aimed to conduct a ballot among certain employees of the Respondent to potentially authorise protected industrial action. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the basis of the documents submitted, including a statutory declaration by Nicholas Bligh of the Union, outlining the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and the Union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Union had fulfilled the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The court was required to decide if the Union's application for a protected action ballot order should be granted based on the information presented.

The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, determined that the Union had satisfied the conditions under section 443(1) of the Act, and that the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The Vice President was satisfied with the steps taken by the Union in bargaining with the Respondent and the Union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement. The Respondent's lack of opposition to the application also played a role in the decision. Consequently, the court granted the Union's application for a protected action ballot order.

The final orders of the court included granting the Union's application for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Clarence Coal Pty Limited. The court's decision was based on the material presented, including the statutory declaration by Nicholas Bligh, and the Respondent's lack of opposition to the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established