[2016] FWC 3403

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 26 May 2016.

This is to correct the employer’s name. The employer’s name should read Fluor Global Services Australia Pty Ltd.

Suzie Kairouz

Associate to Deputy President Gostencnik

30 May 2016.

[2016] FWC 3403

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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
Fluor Global Services Australia Pty Ltd
(B2016/576)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 MAY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fluor Global Services Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the 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 Fluor Global Services Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 26 May 2016 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 P Mooney 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 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 PR580839.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission, represented by Mr R W Bisset, faced a dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Fluor Global Services Australia Pty Ltd. The union sought approval for a proposed ballot of its members employed by Fluor, to determine their willingness to take protected action in response to ongoing issues. Fluor contested the union's application, arguing that the ballot did not meet the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. The key issues before the Commission were whether the union had provided sufficient details about the proposed action, whether the ballot notice was clear and concise, and whether the ballot complied with the provisions of the Act.

The Commission examined the union's application and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the union had provided adequate information about the proposed action, including the nature of the dispute and the specific issues that led to the proposed ballot. The Commission also determined that the ballot notice was clear and concise, and that it complied with the requirements of the Act. The Commission concluded that the union had met the necessary criteria for the approval of the ballot and dismissed Fluor's objections. Consequently, the Commission approved the union's application for a ballot of its members employed by Fluor.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the union was permitted to conduct a ballot of its members to determine their willingness to take protected action against Fluor. The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the union's proposed ballot, with specific conditions to ensure that the ballot process was conducted fairly and in accordance with the Act. The orders also included provisions for the protection of employees who chose not to participate in the ballot or who voted against taking protected action.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Fluor Global Services 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