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 T/A Crown Casino
(B2019/721)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Crown Melbourne Limited T/A Crown Casino.

[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 Crown Melbourne Limited T/A Crown Casino (Respondent).

[2] On 2 September 2019, 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 S Diston 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 PR711953

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members employed by Crown Melbourne Limited trading as Crown Casino, and the employer itself. The union sought approval for a proposed industrial action ballot aimed at its members, which included casino workers at Crown Melbourne. The union's intention was to garner support for potential protected action, contingent on the outcome of the ballot. The employer opposed the ballot, arguing that it lacked the necessary bona fides and was potentially coercive.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements for protected action, specifically under section 364 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to determine if the union's application was bona fide, whether the ballot notice was properly drafted, and if the proposed action met the criteria for protected action. Additionally, the Commission examined if the ballot notice was likely to cause distress or anxiety to employees, potentially rendering it coercive.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission held that the union's application for a ballot was indeed bona fide, as it was based on genuine industrial reasons. The Commission noted that the proposed action was not intended to be coercive and that the ballot notice was adequately drafted to inform employees of their rights and the implications of the proposed action. The Commission further determined that the proposed action met the statutory criteria for protected action. Consequently, the Commission approved the union's application for the ballot, finding no grounds for it to be considered coercive.

The Fair Work Commission's final order was that the union's application for a protected action ballot of Crown Melbourne Limited's employees was approved. The union was authorised to conduct the ballot as per the terms and conditions specified in the Commission's decision.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established