Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd

[2018] FWC 4504

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

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

Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd

(B2018/661)

Building, metal and civil construction industries
Deputy President Gostencnik	MELBOURNE, 31 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd.

This is an application by the 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 Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 31 July 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Jacques Desiree Cyril Bijoux 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR609590.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

< PR609588>

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia recently took legal action against Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought an order for the employer to facilitate a ballot of its employees to determine their support for protected industrial action. The union claimed that the employees were aggrieved by various issues, including pay rates, leave entitlements, and redundancy payments.

The central legal issues for the Commission to resolve were whether the union had properly notified the employer of the proposed protected action and whether the union had provided sufficient details in the notice to enable the employer to comply with its obligations under the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the union's notice sufficiently described the nature of the proposed protected action, thereby allowing the employer to assess its potential impact on its operations.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the union had adequately notified the employer and provided sufficient details in the notice to enable the employer to comply with its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the union's notice was clear and specific, describing the nature of the proposed protected action in sufficient detail. The employer was required to facilitate the ballot of its employees to determine their support for the protected action. The Commission issued an order requiring the employer to take all necessary steps to facilitate the ballot, including providing access to the workplace and employees to the union officers.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established