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
Icon Water Limited
(B2020/434)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 AUGUST 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Icon Water Limited.

[1] This is an application by 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 Icon Water Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 12 August 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 Matthew McCann of the Applicant declared on 11 August 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 PR721807.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia recently dealt with a case between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) and Icon Water Limited (Icon). The Union sought a declaration that Icon had breached section 40 of the Fair Work Act 2009 by failing to provide the Union with certain information and documents necessary for the Union to conduct a ballot of its members regarding proposed industrial action. Icon resisted the application on various grounds, including that the Union's ballot notice was invalid.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Union's ballot notice was valid and whether Icon had properly complied with its obligations under section 40 of the Act. The Union argued that Icon had not provided the necessary information and documents within the time required by the Act, while Icon contended that the Union's ballot notice was invalid and that, even if it were valid, it had provided the Union with all the information and documents it was required to provide.

The court found that the Union's ballot notice was valid and that Icon had failed to provide the Union with certain information and documents within the required timeframe. The court held that the Union was entitled to a declaration that Icon had breached section 40 of the Act. The court also found that Icon had not provided the Union with all the information and documents it was required to provide under the Act. The court noted that the failure to provide the information and documents in a timely manner had the potential to undermine the Union's ability to conduct a proper ballot of its members.

The court ordered Icon to pay the Union's costs of the proceeding. The court did not make any orders regarding the validity of the proposed industrial action or the potential consequences of the Union's failure to conduct a proper ballot.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established