| [2024] FWC 1078 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| 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
J & A Machines Pty Ltd T/A United Technology Services
(B2024/475)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON | ADELAIDE, 26 APRIL 2024 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of J & A Machines Pty Ltd
This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of J & A Machines Pty Ltd trading as United Technology Services (United Technology or Employer).
On 23 April 2024, the Commission was advised that the Employer did not object to the Application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Prameesh Chandra, Union Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the CEPU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with it, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.
The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 6 June 2024.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.
On 24 March 2024, the Commission consulted with the parties in relation to the form of Question 21 as originally proposed, noting potential concerns as to whether the proposed question fell within the scope of s.19 of the Act. The Applicant subsequently sought an amendment to that question. Leave was granted to amend the application to reflect that amendment and no objection was raised by the Respondent.
An Order has been separately issued in PR774218.
This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives for the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] This is, in effect, thirty (30) working days from the date of the Order, as sought in the application. This is also the minimum period required by the AEC.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR774220>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v J & a Machines Pty Ltd T/A United Technology Services [2024] FWC 1078
- Case
- [2024] FWC 1078
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to address included whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and whether all the requirements under section 443 of the Act were met for a protected action ballot. The court also needed to determine the appropriate ballot period and whether the proposed ballot question complied with the Act. The union provided a declaration from Prameesh Chandra, the Union Organiser, stating that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement. The court was satisfied that all requirements had been met, including the notification time and the need for a ballot.
The Deputy President concluded that the ballot should be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and determined that voting should close on 6 June 2024, which also established the ballot period. The court addressed concerns regarding the proposed ballot question and granted leave to amend it. The matter was then assigned to another Member of the Commission for a compulsory conciliation conference. Directions were likely to be issued to ensure meaningful negotiations between the parties.
The court issued an order for the protected action ballot, specifying the ballot period and the amended ballot question. The matter was referred to another Member of the Commission for the compulsory conciliation conference to facilitate further negotiations between the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.