Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Fredon Industries Pty Limited T/A Fredon

[2017] FWC 5864

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

Fredon Industries Pty Limited T/A Fredon

(B2017/1052)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 9 NOVEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fredon Industries Pty Limited T/a Fredon.

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 Fredon Industries Pty Limited t/a Fredon (the Respondent).

On 9 November 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr D McKinley 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR597563.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, which sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Fredon Industries Pty Limited trading as Fredon. The Fair Work Commission was the court in this case. The Union argued that the proposed ballot was necessary to gauge employee support for potential industrial action, which was essential for the Union's bargaining strategy. Fredon Industries opposed the ballot, citing concerns about potential disruptions to their operations and the negative impact on employee morale.

The primary legal issue was whether the Union had provided sufficient evidence to justify the proposed ballot. The Union contended that the ballot was a necessary step to ascertain the level of employee support for industrial action, which is a legitimate activity under the Fair Work Act 2009. Fredon Industries, on the other hand, argued that the ballot would cause unnecessary disruption and that the Union had not demonstrated a sufficient need for it.

The Fair Work Commission considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the evidence provided. The Commission found that the Union had not adequately demonstrated that the proposed ballot was necessary to ascertain the level of employee support for industrial action. The evidence provided by the Union did not sufficiently establish that the ballot was required for the purposes outlined. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the Union's application and did not grant permission for the proposed ballot.

The Fair Work Commission's decision emphasised the importance of demonstrating a clear need for a ballot before granting permission for such an activity. The Commission's ruling underscored the need for Unions to provide robust evidence to justify the proposed industrial action and the potential impact on the employer's operations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established