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
FMP Group (Australia) Pty Limited
(B2017/176)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 1 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of FMP Group (Australia) Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by the 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 FMP Group (Australia) Pty Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 28 February 2017 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 Ms L Weber 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 PR590583.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members employed by FMP Group (Australia) Pty Limited, applied to the Fair Work Commission for authorisation to conduct a ballot of its members in relation to protected action. The FMP Group contested the application on the basis that the proposed ballot was not in relation to a genuine dispute of interest between employees and employer, as required by section 369(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, and subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed protected action ballot was in relation to a genuine dispute of interest between the employees and the employer. The court considered whether the Union's proposed industrial action was related to a genuine dispute of interest, which was a requirement under section 369(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court also considered whether the Union's proposed industrial action was related to an existing or potential workplace dispute, as required by section 371 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court found that the Union's proposed industrial action was in relation to a genuine dispute of interest between the employees and the employer. The court found that the Union's proposed industrial action was related to an existing or potential workplace dispute, and that the Union had demonstrated a sufficient level of support for the proposed industrial action. The court also found that the Union had taken reasonable steps to inform the employer of the proposed industrial action, and that the employer had not taken any steps to address the dispute. The court ultimately determined that the Union's proposed industrial action was in relation to a genuine dispute of interest, and authorised the Union to conduct the proposed ballot of its members.

The court ordered that the Union be authorised to conduct a ballot of its members in relation to the proposed industrial action. The court found that the Union had demonstrated a sufficient level of support for the proposed industrial action, and that the proposed industrial action was in relation to a genuine dispute of interest between the employees and the employer. The court also found that the Union had taken reasonable steps to inform the employer of the proposed industrial action, and that the employer had not taken any steps to address the dispute. The court ultimately determined that the Union's proposed industrial action was in relation to a genuine dispute of interest, and authorised the Union to conduct the proposed ballot of its members.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v FMP Group (Australia) Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established