DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd
(B2014/1130)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH

SYDNEY, 16 DECEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] My associate was advised by Mr Darrin Moy, General Manager People & Culture for the Respondent, that the Respondent would not advance any opposition to an order being made.

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

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the Applicant has been issued in conjunction with the decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard a matter between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the union's intention to conduct a ballot among the employees of Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd to ascertain their willingness to engage in protected industrial action. Harbour City Ferries sought an injunction to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot, arguing that it would unlawfully interfere with their business operations.

The central legal issues the court was tasked with resolving included whether the union's proposed ballot was compliant with the relevant industrial relations laws and if it would cause substantial harm to Harbour City Ferries' business. The court needed to balance the union's right to organise and engage in protected industrial action with the employer's rights to conduct their business without undue interference. The court considered whether the union's ballot met the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the potential harm to Harbour City Ferries' business was significant enough to warrant an injunction.

The Federal Court found that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the legal requirements for a protected action ballot. The union had not provided sufficient information to the employer about the nature of the proposed industrial action, which was a necessary condition under the Act. Additionally, the court held that Harbour City Ferries had not demonstrated that the ballot would cause substantial harm to their business operations. Consequently, the court dismissed the employer's application for an injunction, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot as intended. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when organising industrial action and highlighted the need for employers and unions to engage in good faith discussions to avoid unnecessary legal disputes.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Harbour City Ferries 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