DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited T/A Coates Hire Ltd
(B2018/106)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

PERTH, 20 FEBRUARY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited.

[1] 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 Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 19 February 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 Timmers 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 PR600555.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited. The dispute centred around a proposed industrial action ballot by the employees of Coates Hire, seeking to determine if they could proceed with protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The legal issues before the Commission were primarily focused on whether the proposed industrial action was protected under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to determine if the proposed action complied with the procedural requirements of the Act and whether the action was related to a "workplace dispute." Additionally, the Commission considered whether Coates Hire had provided adequate information to its employees, which was a prerequisite for the ballot to proceed.

The Commission examined the procedural aspects of the ballot, including the timing and manner in which the notice was given and whether the employees were adequately informed of their rights and obligations. The Commission also evaluated whether the proposed action was genuinely related to a workplace dispute and whether it was being undertaken in good faith. The Court found that the employees had not been adequately informed and that the ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements. Consequently, the proposed protected action ballot was not authorised.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the employees of Coates Hire were not entitled to proceed with the ballot as it did not meet the statutory requirements. The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be cancelled and that Coates Hire must provide the necessary information to its employees to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009 in any future ballot process.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited T/A Coates Hire Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established