DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/60)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 29 JANUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd.

[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 Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 25 January 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 C Lynch 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 PR704326.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the union and the company over a proposed protected action ballot of the employees. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought authorisation for the ballot to proceed, while the company opposed it on the grounds that the ballot was not a genuine step in good faith to resolve an industrial dispute.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot constituted a genuine step in good faith to resolve an industrial dispute, as required by the Fair Work Act. The court examined the circumstances under which the ballot was proposed, the nature of the dispute, and the actions taken by both parties to resolve the issues. The court also considered the procedural fairness and the requirements for a legitimate industrial action.

The court found that the union's proposed ballot was indeed a genuine step in good faith to resolve the industrial dispute. It noted that the union had made several attempts to resolve the dispute through negotiation and had provided the company with detailed information about the issues at hand. The court was satisfied that the ballot was a necessary step to empower the employees to take collective action in the event that the dispute remained unresolved. Consequently, the court authorised the union to proceed with the ballot. The company's opposition was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission authorised the union to conduct the proposed ballot of employees and directed the company to provide necessary assistance to facilitate the process.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established