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
Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd
(B2016/1068)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 7 OCTOBER 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 7 October 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr M Boyd of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, 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 PR586227.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd for an order to prevent the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia from conducting a protected action ballot of its members who are employed by Jemena. The union had previously issued a notice of protected action in relation to potential industrial action to be taken by its members. Jemena sought an order to prevent the ballot, arguing that the union's proposed ballot was not in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue before the commission was whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements under the Act, including the necessity for the ballot to be held on a day and at a time that did not unreasonably interfere with the employer's operations.

The commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and the provisions of the Fair Work Act. It found that the union's proposed ballot did not unreasonably interfere with Jemena's operations and that the union had followed the correct procedures in issuing the notice of protected action. The commission concluded that the union's proposed ballot was valid and ordered Jemena to facilitate the ballot as per the union's notice. The commission's reasoning was grounded in the principle of ensuring that the procedural requirements of the Act were met while balancing the rights of both the employer and the employees.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was that the union's proposed ballot of its members was valid and that Jemena was required to facilitate the ballot as per the union's notice. The commission emphasised the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act when conducting a ballot for protected action. The union was granted the order it sought, allowing the ballot to proceed under the terms specified in its notice.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established