DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd
(B2020/342)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 30 JUNE 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd.

[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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 29 June 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr David Mier of the Applicant declared on 25 June 2020, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and are, 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 PR720587.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, representing employees of Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd, sought a declaration from the Fair Work Commission that the company had breached the Fair Work Act 2009 by not allowing the union to conduct a ballot of its members about protected action. The dispute arose from the union's attempt to organise a protected action ballot for employees, which the company opposed on the basis that it had already conducted an internal vote on the same matter. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's independent statutory body responsible for resolving workplace disputes.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had the right to conduct a ballot of its members about protected action, and if so, whether the company had breached the Fair Work Act by obstructing the union's efforts. The union argued that it had the right to organise a ballot and that the company's actions amounted to an unfair labour practice. The company, on the other hand, contended that it had already conducted a vote on the same issue and that the union's attempt to organise a ballot was unnecessary and an attempt to circumvent the company's internal processes.

The Commission found in favour of the union, holding that the union had the right to organise a ballot of its members about protected action, and that the company had breached the Fair Work Act by obstructing the union's efforts. The Commission held that the company's internal vote did not preclude the union from organising a ballot, as the two processes served different purposes and were not mutually exclusive. The Commission also found that the company's actions had the potential to undermine the union's ability to effectively represent its members and to engage in collective bargaining. The Commission ordered the company to allow the union to conduct a ballot of its members about protected action and to take steps to prevent any similar breaches of the Fair Work Act in the future.

The Fair Work Commission ordered Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd to permit the union to conduct a ballot of its members about protected action and to take steps to ensure that similar breaches of the Fair Work Act do not occur in the future. The company was also ordered to provide the union with access to its employees for the purposes of conducting the ballot. The Commission's decision highlights the importance of protecting the rights of unions to organise and engage in collective bargaining, and underscores the need for employers to respect those rights and to avoid actions that may undermine the union's ability to effectively represent its members.

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