DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber
(B2019/751)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (ETU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber (Respondent).

[2] On 11 September 2019, 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 Daniel Bessell of the ETU declared on 6 September 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have 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 PR712273.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber. The dispute centred around a proposed ballot of the employees of Hyne & Son Pty Ltd to determine their willingness to engage in protected industrial action. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian statutory body with jurisdiction over employment and industrial relations matters.

The legal issues before the Commission included the validity of the union's proposed ballot and the employer's objections to the ballot. The employer contested the ballot on several grounds, including the assertion that the ballot was not related to a genuine dispute and that it was not conducted in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The union, on the other hand, argued that the ballot was a legitimate exercise of its members' rights and that it complied with the relevant provisions of the Act.

The Commission considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. It concluded that the union's proposed ballot was valid and should proceed as planned. The Commission found that the union had established a genuine dispute with the employer and that the ballot was an appropriate means of determining the employees' willingness to engage in protected action. The Commission also rejected the employer's objections to the ballot, finding that they were not well-founded. As a result, the Commission ordered that the union's proposed ballot should proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established