DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited
(B2020/185)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 27 MARCH 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited.

[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 employees of Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 25 March 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 Daniel Bessell of the Applicant declared on 23 March 2020, 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 PR717906.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the legality of a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of the Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited. The union, representing the employees, sought to conduct a protected action ballot in order to gauge employee support for potential industrial action. The sugar mill company contested the ballot, arguing that it did not meet the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the ballot notice provided sufficient information to employees regarding the proposed industrial action and if it met the criteria for a protected action ballot. Additionally, the court examined whether the ballot was a genuine attempt to resolve a workplace dispute.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's proposed ballot did not sufficiently inform employees about the details of the proposed industrial action, including the specific actions employees would be taking, the reasons behind the proposed action, and the potential consequences. The Commission held that the ballot notice failed to meet the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act, as it did not provide adequate information to enable employees to make an informed decision. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was unlawful and ordered that the union refrain from proceeding with the ballot. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of clear and comprehensive communication in industrial action ballots to ensure that employees are fully informed about the implications of their participation.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established