DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Fredon Industries Pty Ltd T/A Fredon
(B2019/214)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 14 MARCH 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fredon Industries Pty Ltd T/A Fredon.

[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 Fredon Industries Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 14 March 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 A Hicks 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 PR705838.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Fredon Industries Pty Ltd, trading as Fredon. The dispute centred on the union's intention to conduct a ballot of employees regarding potential protected industrial action. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The union sought approval for a ballot to ascertain the employees' support for industrial action, including the possibility of a strike. Fredon Industries opposed the ballot, arguing that it would unduly disrupt business operations and was not necessary given the ongoing negotiations.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the union's proposed ballot was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the potential disruption to Fredon's business operations outweighed the union's right to conduct such a ballot. The Commission had to consider the balance between the union's right to organise and communicate with its members about potential industrial action and the employer's right to conduct business without unreasonable interference. The Commission also examined the current state of negotiations between the parties and the potential impact of the ballot on those negotiations.

In determining the matter, the Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the nature and scope of the proposed industrial action, the state of negotiations, and the potential impact on Fredon's business operations. The Commission found that the union had demonstrated a genuine desire to engage in protected industrial action and that the proposed ballot was a reasonable means of determining the level of support among the employees. The Commission also noted that the ongoing negotiations did not preclude the union from seeking employee support for potential action. However, the Commission emphasised the importance of minimising disruption to Fredon's business and required the union to take certain steps to mitigate any potential impact of the ballot.

The Commission ultimately approved the union's proposed ballot, subject to certain conditions designed to minimise disruption to Fredon's business operations. The union was required to provide Fredon with detailed information about the ballot, including the timing and method of conducting the ballot, to ensure that Fredon could take appropriate measures to manage any potential impact. The Commission's decision recognised the importance of both the union's right to organise and the employer's right to conduct business without undue interference, and sought to balance these competing interests in the context of the specific circumstances of this case.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established