DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
MSF Sugar Pty Ltd T/A Maryborough Sugar Factory
(B2020/306)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 JUNE 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of MSF Sugar Pty Ltd T/A Maryborough Sugar Factory.

[1] 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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of MSF Sugar Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 10 June 2020, 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 Daniel Bessell of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has 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 PR720147.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, initiated proceedings against the defendant, MSF Sugar Pty Ltd T/A Maryborough Sugar Factory. The dispute centred on the union's proposed industrial action, specifically a ballot of employees concerning protected actions. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian federal workplace relations tribunal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the union's proposed ballot was conducted in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions and whether there were any procedural irregularities that could invalidate the ballot. The court had to consider whether the union's actions were lawful and if the company had valid grounds to challenge the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission examined the procedural aspects of the union's ballot process, including whether the union had provided adequate notice and information to the employees. The court also considered the company's objections, focusing on whether there were any substantial procedural flaws that would render the ballot invalid. Ultimately, the court found that the union had followed the necessary procedures correctly, and the ballot was conducted in accordance with the law. The objections raised by the company were deemed insufficient to invalidate the ballot.

Consequently, the Fair Work Commission upheld the validity of the union's proposed ballot. The court dismissed the company's application to prevent the ballot, allowing the union to proceed with the proposed industrial action. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in industrial relations processes and highlighted the need for both parties to conduct themselves within the legal framework.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v MSF Sugar Pty Ltd T/A Maryborough Sugar Factory

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established