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
(B2019/719)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2019

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

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

[2] On 2 September 2019, 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 Benjamin Lister of the CEPU declared on 29 August 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR711925.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and John Holland Pty Ltd. The Union sought to conduct a ballot of its members employed by John Holland Pty Ltd for the purpose of organising protected industrial action. John Holland Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, contending that it did not comply with the relevant industrial relations legislation. The matter was brought before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for determination.

The central legal issues that the court had to address involved the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). The court needed to determine whether the Union's proposed ballot met the statutory requirements and whether John Holland Pty Ltd had valid grounds to prevent the ballot. The Union argued that its proposed ballot was lawful and necessary to protect its members' rights, while John Holland Pty Ltd contended that the ballot did not meet the legislative criteria and would cause significant operational disruption.

The court carefully examined the statutory provisions and found that the Union's proposed ballot did not comply with the legislative requirements. The court held that the Union had failed to provide adequate information to the employees about the proposed industrial action and the consequences of participating in the ballot. Additionally, the court noted that the ballot did not adequately address the potential impact on the operations of John Holland Pty Ltd. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of John Holland Pty Ltd, granting an injunction to prevent the Union from conducting the ballot. The Union's application was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia found that the Union's proposed ballot did not comply with the legislative requirements and granted an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The Union's application for the ballot was dismissed.

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