DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
KONE Elevators Pty Ltd
(B2019/632)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 6 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of KONE Elevators Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by 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 KONE Elevators Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 6 August 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 Mr Michael Anderson 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR711077.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia versus Kone Elevators Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with assessing the union’s proposal for a protected action ballot. The dispute centred on the union's intention to conduct a ballot of its members, who were employees of Kone Elevators, concerning potential protected industrial action. The commission's role was to determine whether the proposed ballot was in compliance with the relevant industrial relations laws and if it met the necessary criteria for protected action.

The primary legal issues before the commission included whether the union had properly notified Kone Elevators of the ballot, whether the ballot's purpose was genuinely for the protection of employees' conditions, and if the proposed action was reasonably likely to result in the achievement of the union's objectives. Furthermore, the commission had to consider whether the ballot was necessary and whether there had been genuine and meaningful negotiations between the union and the employer.

The commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and found that the union had indeed provided proper notification to Kone Elevators and that the ballot's purpose was aligned with the protection of employees' conditions. The commission also determined that the proposed action was reasonably likely to achieve the union's objectives, given the circumstances. The commission concluded that the union had fulfilled the necessary requirements for a protected action ballot, as it was both necessary and preceded by genuine and meaningful negotiations. As a result, the commission approved the union's proposal for the ballot.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Kone Elevators 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