| [2017] FWC 156 |
| 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
v
Hans Continental Smallgoods Pty Ltd
(B2017/19)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 10 JANUARY 2017 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hans Continental Smallgoods Pty Ltd.
[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 Hans Continental Smallgoods Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
[2] On 9 January 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 Mr G Rogers 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 PR589212.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR589213>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Hans Continental Smallgoods Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 156
- Case
- [2017] FWC 156
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Commission considered the legal framework governing protected industrial action, including the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission examined the union's compliance with the requirements for conducting a ballot, including the necessity to provide the company with a notice of the proposed action and the information needed for the ballot. The company argued that the union's ballot did not meet the statutory criteria and that it had substantial reasons to oppose the ballot. The Commission assessed the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine whether the union had followed the correct procedures and whether the company's opposition was justified.
After careful deliberation, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the union had not complied with the statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. The Commission found that the union's ballot did not meet the necessary criteria, and thus, the ballot was invalid. The company's opposition to the ballot was deemed justified based on the union's procedural shortcomings. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the company, prohibiting the union from proceeding with the ballot as proposed.
As a result of the decision, the Fair Work Commission issued orders that the union was not permitted to conduct the protected action ballot as initially planned. The company was also granted relief from the obligations to facilitate the ballot, as the Commission found the union's process to be defective. These orders effectively prevented the proposed industrial action from proceeding in its current form, pending any further steps the union might take to rectify the procedural issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.