| [2023] FWC 3187 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| 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
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Australia Pty Limited
(B2023/1324)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON | ADELAIDE, 4 DECEMBER 2023 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Australia Pty Limited
This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Australia Pty Limited (Coca-Cola or Employer).
On 4 December 2023, the Commission was advised that Coca-Cola did not, in effect, object to 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 declaration of Mr Scott Reichman, Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the CEPU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Coca-Cola, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.
The ballot is to be conducted by the Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS (CiVS). CiVS has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s 468A of the Act[1] and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.
For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 18 December 2023.[2] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.
Following consultation with the parties, the definition of the group of employees in clause 3 of the Order was altered to reflect the apparent intention of the application. Clauses 6 to 8 were also re-ordered to reflect the Commission’s standard drafting format.
An Order has been separately issued in PR768914.
This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives involved in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS [2023] FWC 1400.
[2] This is, in effect, ten (10) working days from the date effect of the Order, as sought in the application.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR768915>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Australia Pty Limited [2023] FWC 3187
- Case
- [2023] FWC 3187
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Deputy President involved verifying whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Coca-Cola and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The union submitted a declaration by its Organiser, Scott Reichman, detailing the bargaining process and efforts made towards reaching an agreement. The Deputy President considered this evidence and determined that all statutory requirements had been satisfied. Additionally, the Commission assessed the ballot agent, Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS (CiVS), ensuring it was eligible and authorized to conduct the ballot.
The Deputy President concluded that the CEPU had met the statutory criteria and granted the application for a protected action ballot. The ballot was to be conducted by CiVS, and the voting period was set to close on 18 December 2023. The Deputy President also adjusted the definition of the employee group and reorganized the clauses in the order to align with standard drafting practices. A separate order was issued to schedule a compulsory conciliation conference, to be conducted by another Member of the Commission, to facilitate negotiations between the parties.
The final orders included the authorization for the protected action ballot and the scheduling of a conciliation conference to encourage meaningful negotiations. These decisions aimed to facilitate a resolution between the union and the employer while adhering to the statutory requirements set forth 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.