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
Crown Melbourne Limited
(B2015/1137)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 SEPTEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Crown Melbourne Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Crown Melbourne Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 2 September 2015 my associate was advised that the Respondent Company 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 B Vaughan of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR571456.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the dispute were the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Crown Melbourne Limited. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the court tasked with resolving workplace relations issues in Australia. The union sought approval for a proposed industrial action ballot to be conducted among the employees of Crown Melbourne Limited. The company opposed the ballot, raising objections on various grounds.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed industrial action ballot complied with the relevant statutory requirements and whether it was necessary and appropriate for the union to proceed with the ballot. The union argued that the ballot was a legitimate means of facilitating democratic participation among the employees and that it was necessary to address grievances concerning the terms and conditions of employment. Crown Melbourne Limited contended that the ballot was unnecessary and could potentially cause significant disruption to its operations, thereby affecting its ability to provide services to customers.

The Commission considered the statutory provisions governing industrial action ballots and the principles of fairness and proportionality. It noted that the union had a duty to act in the best interests of its members and that the proposed ballot was a reasonable means of allowing employees to express their views on the issues at hand. The Commission also recognised the importance of maintaining operational stability and minimising disruption to the business. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was necessary and appropriate, and it granted the union's application for approval. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in protected industrial action with the need to maintain operational stability and protect the interests of employers and customers.

The Fair Work Commission approved the union's proposed industrial action ballot, subject to certain conditions and limitations aimed at mitigating potential disruptions to Crown Melbourne Limited's operations. The union was required to provide detailed information about the ballot to the company and to ensure that the ballot was conducted in a manner that complied with the relevant legal requirements. The decision highlighted the importance of striking a balance between the rights of employees to engage in protected industrial action and the need to protect the interests of employers and customers.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Crown Melbourne Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established