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

[2014] FWC 7148

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Electrix Pty Ltd
(B2014/1443)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Electrix Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 9 October 2014 my associate was advised that the Respondent Company did 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 Ms Zoe Watkins 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 PR556451.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia filed an application against Electrix Pty Ltd concerning a proposed protected action ballot of the employees. The dispute centred around the union's intention to conduct a ballot to ascertain employee support for protected industrial action, which the company opposed on the grounds that it was not in line with their enterprise agreement and had not been properly notified. The legal issues at hand required the Commission to determine whether the union's proposed ballot was permissible under the applicable enterprise agreement and whether it was adequately notified to the employer.

The Commission considered the provisions of the enterprise agreement, which outlined the processes for protected actions, including the requirement for proper notification. The union argued that the ballot was a legitimate step in determining employee support for potential protected action, while the employer contended that the ballot was not sanctioned by the agreement and had not been notified as required. The Commission examined the union's obligations under the Fair Work Act and the terms of the enterprise agreement to assess the validity of the union's proposed action. It found that the union's actions were consistent with the enterprise agreement and that the employer had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the ballot.

Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, affirming that the proposed ballot was a legitimate step in determining employee support for potential industrial action and was compliant with the enterprise agreement. The Commission further found that the employer had not been prejudiced by the ballot, and thus, the union's actions were justified. The orders of the Commission were that the employer was directed to allow the union to conduct the ballot as proposed.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established