DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World
(B2019/523)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 JULY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of DP World Melbourne Limited.

[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 DP World Melbourne Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 4 July 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 N Jenkins 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 PR710027.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the "Union") and DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World (the "Employer"). The dispute centred around the Union's intention to conduct a protected action ballot of its members, who were employees of the Employer, to gauge their support for potential industrial action. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission (the "Commission").

The legal issues before the Commission were primarily whether the Union had complied with the necessary procedural requirements when seeking to conduct the ballot. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the Union had provided the Employer with adequate notice and information in line with the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the ballot proposal was reasonably related to the employees' industrial activities or objectives.

The Commission found that the Union had not provided sufficient detail in its notice to the Employer, thereby failing to comply with the statutory requirements. The Union's ballot proposal did not specify the precise nature of the proposed industrial action, which left the Employer in the dark about the potential implications of the ballot. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the Union's failure to provide adequate information meant the ballot could not proceed as proposed. The Union's application for authorisation to conduct the ballot was dismissed.

The Commission's decision was based on the need for clear and specific communication between the Union and the Employer, ensuring both parties could adequately assess the potential impact of the proposed industrial action. The Union's failure to provide sufficient detail meant the Employer could not make an informed decision on whether to consent to the ballot or to seek further information. The Commission emphasised the importance of compliance with statutory obligations to maintain a fair and balanced industrial relations process.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established