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 T/A Icon Water
(B2020/437)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 14 AUGUST 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Icon Water Limited T/A Icon Water.

[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 14 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 Brian Windsor 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 PR721851.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia versus Icon Water Limited trading as Icon Water, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving a dispute regarding a proposed industrial action ballot by the union. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among its members, employees of Icon Water, to gauge support for potential strike action. Icon Water, on the other hand, opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the conditions under which a union may lawfully conduct a ballot for protected industrial action. The central concern was whether the proposed ballot met the statutory requirements, including whether it was reasonably necessary and whether the union had adequately considered the potential impact on the public. Icon Water argued that the union had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the ballot, while the union contended that the ballot was essential to determine member support for potential action.

The Commission found that the union had not sufficiently demonstrated that the ballot was reasonably necessary. The union's application did not include comprehensive evidence of the issues motivating the proposed action, nor did it detail the specific outcomes the union hoped to achieve through the ballot. The Commission noted that the union's application was largely speculative and did not provide clear or compelling reasons for proceeding with the ballot. As such, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot did not meet the statutory criteria for protected action. Consequently, the application for authorisation of the ballot was dismissed.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established