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
Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd
(B2018/244)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 APRIL 2018

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 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 9 April 2018 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 D Timmers 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 PR601835.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia to hold a protected action ballot of the employees of Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd. The ballot was proposed to seek employee support for protected action relating to potential changes to the employees' conditions of employment. The company opposed the ballot on the basis that the union had not provided sufficient information to allow the company to assess the proposed action and that the ballot notice was misleading. The Commission had to decide whether the union had provided sufficient information to allow the company to assess the proposed action and whether the ballot notice was misleading.

The Commission considered that the union had provided sufficient information to allow the company to assess the proposed action. The union had provided a draft of the proposed enterprise agreement, which contained proposed changes to the employees' conditions of employment. The company had not demonstrated that it was unable to assess the proposed action on the basis of the information provided. The Commission also considered that the ballot notice was not misleading. The notice accurately described the proposed action and the purpose of the ballot. The Commission rejected the company's argument that the notice was misleading because it did not include certain details about the proposed changes.

The Commission ordered that the union could hold a protected action ballot of the employees of Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd. The ballot would seek employee support for protected action relating to potential changes to the employees' conditions of employment. The company was ordered to provide the union with a list of the employees and their contact details to allow the union to conduct the ballot. The company was also ordered to give the union access to the workplace to allow the union to conduct the ballot.

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