DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
GrainCorp Operations Limited
(B2020/509)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of GrainCorp Operations Limited.

[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 GrainCorp Operations Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 4 September 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr D King 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 PR722539.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia sought an order that GrainCorp Operations Limited must permit the union to conduct a ballot of its employees in relation to proposed protected action. The union claimed that GrainCorp had refused to facilitate the ballot and had instead imposed unnecessary conditions which would prevent the union from effectively communicating with its members. GrainCorp argued that it had not refused to facilitate the ballot but rather had provided a reasonable and lawful process for the union to follow.

The central issue before the Commission was whether GrainCorp had acted lawfully in its response to the union's request to conduct a ballot of its employees. The Commission needed to determine whether GrainCorp's actions amounted to an unlawful interference with the union's right to conduct a ballot and whether GrainCorp had imposed unnecessary conditions that hindered the union's communication with its members. The Commission considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and the principles of good faith bargaining and procedural fairness.

The Commission found that GrainCorp had not acted lawfully in its response to the union's request to conduct a ballot. It was held that GrainCorp had interfered with the union's right to conduct a ballot by imposing unnecessary conditions that prevented the union from effectively communicating with its members. The Commission emphasised the importance of good faith bargaining and procedural fairness in industrial relations and held that GrainCorp's actions amounted to an unlawful interference with the union's rights. The Commission ordered GrainCorp to permit the union to conduct a ballot of its employees without any unnecessary conditions.

GrainCorp was ordered to permit the union to conduct a ballot of its employees without any unnecessary conditions. GrainCorp was also ordered to pay the union's costs of the application.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v GrainCorp Operations Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established