DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/346)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 MAY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 21 May 2021, 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 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR730084.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, as the plaintiff, and Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd, as the defendant. The matter at hand concerned the union's proposed ballot of its members regarding potential protected industrial action. Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd opposed the union's ballot, asserting that it did not comply with certain statutory requirements and thus was invalid. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which had jurisdiction over employment and industrial relations matters in Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the validity of the union's proposed ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). This included examining the timing, content, and procedural aspects of the ballot to ensure it met the necessary legal standards. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd's opposition to the ballot was justified under the Act.

In examining these issues, the court found that the union's proposed ballot did indeed meet the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. The union had provided sufficient information to the employees and followed the correct procedures, ensuring that the ballot was both lawful and valid. Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd's arguments against the ballot's validity were therefore dismissed. The court's decision was grounded in the interpretation of the legislative provisions and the procedural fairness inherent in the Act.

The Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of the union, affirming the validity of the proposed ballot. Consequently, Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd's opposition to the ballot was rejected. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when conducting industrial action and highlighted the union's right to organise and communicate with its members regarding potential protected action.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Mobil Refining Australia 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