DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd
(B2019/740)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Knauf Plasterboard 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 Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 4 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 Anthony O’Sullivan of the CEPU declared on 3 September 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 PR712021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd was before the Fair Work Commission. The union sought approval for a proposed industrial action ballot to be conducted among the employees of Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd. Knauf contested the union's application, asserting that the ballot did not meet the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act and whether there were valid reasons to support the industrial action. The central focus was on verifying that the union had adhered to the correct procedures, including providing Knauf with sufficient information to assess the ballot's validity and ensuring the ballot addressed a genuine industrial issue.

The Commission examined the union's application and Knauf's objections in detail. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to address unresolved workplace issues. Knauf contended that the ballot did not meet the legislative requirements and lacked sufficient detail to justify the proposed action. After considering the evidence and submissions, the Commission determined that the union's application did not satisfy the procedural criteria for approval. Consequently, the Commission rejected the union's application for a protected action ballot, concluding that it did not meet the necessary standards under the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission's final order was that the application for the protected action ballot be dismissed. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements when initiating industrial action, emphasising that procedural compliance is critical for the legitimacy of such actions.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Knauf Plasterboard 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