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

[2022] FWC 386

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

John Holland Pty Ltd

(B2022/106)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 23 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of John Holland Pty Ltd.

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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of John Holland Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 23 February 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent 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 Ms Chelsea Hill of the Applicant 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR738677.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of John Holland Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the matter was determined on 23 February 2022 by Deputy President Clancy in Melbourne. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading to the decision being made on the basis of the documents submitted without a hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, in accordance with section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union submitted a declaration from Ms Chelsea Hill, which outlined the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer and demonstrated that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement. The Deputy President was satisfied that the union had met its obligations and that the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid.

Based on the evidence presented, the Deputy President concluded that the requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. Consequently, an order was issued in PR738677, permitting the union to proceed with the ballot. This decision underscores the importance of good faith bargaining and adherence to the notification requirements under the Fair Work Act. The court's decision highlights the procedural safeguards in place to ensure that unions and employers can effectively communicate and negotiate terms of employment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established