DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Nilsen (NSW) Pty Ltd
(B2016/717)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 JULY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nilsen NSW Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 18 July 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr S Bankes of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, 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 PR582975.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia versus Nilsen (NSW) Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to determine whether the union's proposed industrial action, specifically a ballot of employees for potential protected action, was lawful. The dispute arose from a disagreement between the union and the employer regarding the terms and conditions of employment, and the commission was tasked with resolving this matter under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the commission were primarily concerned with whether the union had complied with the legislative requirements for conducting a protected action ballot, including whether the ballot notice provided sufficient information to the employees and whether the ballot was conducted in a manner that was fair and reasonable. Additionally, the commission had to assess whether the proposed industrial action was protected action under the Fair Work Act.

The commission examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to determine that the union had indeed complied with the necessary requirements for a protected action ballot. The commission found that the ballot notice was adequate and that the union had acted fairly and reasonably in conducting the ballot. Furthermore, the commission concluded that the proposed industrial action was protected action as it was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment. As a result, the commission upheld the union's right to conduct the ballot and ruled in favour of the union.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was that the union's proposed industrial action ballot was lawful and that the union could proceed with the ballot as planned. The commission found that the union had complied with all relevant legislative requirements and that the proposed action was protected action under the Fair Work Act. The commission did not grant any orders as it had already ruled in favour of the union in its determination.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Nilsen (NSW) 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