Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Inpex Australia Pty Ltd

[2021] FWC 6546

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Inpex Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/1184)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 DECEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Inpex Australia Pty Ltd

[1] This is an application by the 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 Inpex Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 6 December 2021, 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 Damian Bernard Clancey of the Applicant declared on 1 December 2021, 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 PR736551.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Inpex Australia Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The union sought an injunction to prevent the employer from implementing changes to employee work arrangements without first allowing the employees to vote in a protected action ballot. The employer argued that the changes were necessary to meet the needs of the business and that the union's proposed ballot was unreasonable and oppressive.

The court was required to consider whether the union's request for a ballot was reasonable and whether the employer's proposed changes to work arrangements were justified. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the common law principles of fairness and reasonableness in relation to industrial action. The court also considered the parties' submissions and evidence, including expert evidence from both sides.

The court found that the union's request for a ballot was reasonable and that the employer's proposed changes to work arrangements were not justified. The court noted that the union had a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of its members and that the proposed changes would have a significant impact on the employees' work arrangements. The court also found that the employer had not demonstrated that the changes were necessary to meet the needs of the business or that they were the least disruptive option available. The court therefore granted the union's application for an injunction, preventing the employer from implementing the changes without first allowing the employees to vote in a protected action ballot.

The court's decision highlights the importance of employers engaging with their employees and their representatives when making changes to work arrangements. Employers must ensure that any proposed changes are necessary and justified, and that they have considered the impact on employees and the union. The court's decision also reinforces the union's right to protect the rights of its members and to seek a ballot where necessary.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established