Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Pty Limited

[2022] FWC 2799

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

Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Pty Limited

(B2022/1562)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 18 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Coca-Cola Europacific Partners 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 Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 18 October 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 Scott Reichman of the Applicant declared on 14 October 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 PR746961.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission received an application from the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) for a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Pty Limited (Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) and pertained to a proposed ballot of employees to take industrial action. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Applicant had satisfied the requirements under section 437 of the Act for a protected action ballot. This required establishing that a notification period had elapsed and that the Applicant had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Commission also needed to consider whether the statutory requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Act were met, including verifying the steps taken by the Applicant in their negotiations with the Respondent.

The Vice President of the Commission, Catanzariti, found that the Applicant had met the necessary criteria for a protected action ballot order. The decision was based on the statutory declaration of Scott Reichman of the Applicant, which detailed the bargaining process and confirmed the Applicant's genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Vice President was satisfied that the notification period had passed and that the statutory requirements had been fulfilled. Consequently, the application was approved.

The Commission issued an Order allowing the Applicant to proceed with the protected action ballot. This decision was documented in PR746961, and a separate Order was issued in PR746962. The Commission's decision provided clarity and allowed the union to continue with their planned industrial action, subject to the legal protections afforded under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established