“Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia” v Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd

[2018] FWC 5100

[2018] FWC 5100

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on Friday, 31 August 2018.

Due to an administrative error in the numbering, the Print I.D No. is now: PR700053 and the matter number is now B2018/765.

Lidia Susac

Associate to Commissioner Cambridge

Tuesday, 4 September 2018.

[2018] FWC 5100

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protection action ballot Order

“Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia”
v
Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd
(B2018/765)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE SYDNEY, 31 AUGUST 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd.

[1] On 29 August 2018, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), made an application for a protected action ballot Order. The application was made pursuant to section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in respect of members of the CEPU who are employees of Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd (the employer) whose employment is to be regulated by a proposed agreement to replace the AMWU, ETU, AWU Origin Energy Bassgas Operations and Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[2] The application seeks a ballot of employees of the employer who are members of the CEPU who would be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement. The application was supplemented with the Statutory Declaration of Peter Mooney (the Statutory Declaration) dated 29 August 2018. In summary, the Statutory Declaration provided information about events involving attempts made by the CEPU to reach agreement with the employer on the terms of a proposed enterprise agreement.

[3] The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received communication dated 30 March 2018, advising that the employer opposed the application for a protected action ballot Order. This communication advised, inter alia, that the application had named the wrong employer. Subsequently an amended application has been provided which corrected this mistake. The employer has advised that it does not oppose the application provided that it and any Orders that may be made correctly identify the employer.

[4] As the employer does not oppose the amended application the matter has been determined upon the filed documentary material.

[5] The determination of this matter is primarily governed by the provisions of section 443 of the Act. Section 443 is in the following terms:

“443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[6] I am satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with section 437 of the Act. Further, I am satisfied that the applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. In addition, I am satisfied that the requirements of sections 438 and 440 of the Act have also been met.

[7] Therefore, pursuant to subsection 443(1) of the Act, the Commission must make a protected action ballot Order. The Order shall be made in the terms as broadly sought by the CEPU. Accordingly an Order [PR700055] is issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR700053>