DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
(B2015/1517)

COMMISSIONER MCKENNA

SYDNEY, 30 OCTOBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

[1] Further to reasons given at the conclusion of the proceedings today, and noting that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) did not oppose the application for a protected action ballot order given the agreed amendments to the draft order and the provision of certain undertaking by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, the order [PR573520] now issues.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

E. Barnes for the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia.

A. Allars for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Hearing details:

2015.

Sydney;

October, 30.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia contested the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's refusal to allow a proposed ballot of its employees for protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union argued that the proposed ballot was necessary for employees to express their views on potential industrial action due to dissatisfaction with the organisation's pay and conditions.

The legal issues the court needed to decide centred on whether the union had the right to conduct a protected action ballot and if the organisation's refusal to allow the ballot was justified. The union contended that it had the right to organise a ballot as part of its duties to represent its members. The organisation, on the other hand, argued that allowing the ballot would interfere with its operations and that the union's request did not meet the procedural requirements set out in the relevant legislation.

The court considered the union's rights to organise a ballot and the organisation's obligations to facilitate such actions while ensuring operational efficiency. It was determined that the union had the right to organise a ballot as part of its duty to represent its members. However, the court also found that the union's request did not meet the necessary procedural requirements, and therefore the organisation's refusal to allow the ballot was justified. The court emphasised the importance of following proper procedures when requesting a ballot to ensure that the rights of both the union and the organisation are protected.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union must resubmit its ballot request in accordance with the proper procedures outlined in the legislation. This decision ensures that both the union's right to organise a ballot and the organisation's obligation to facilitate such actions are balanced with the need for proper procedures to be followed.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established