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

[2023] FWC 1202

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
v

Noble Drilling Australia Pty Ltd

(B2023/464)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Noble Drilling Australia Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia WA Branch of the ETU (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 Noble Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 19 May 2023, the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Adam Samuel Woodage of the Applicant declared on 16 May 2023, 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 PR762095.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia WA Branch of the ETU (Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Noble Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent). The Applicant sought to hold a ballot among its members to gauge support for potential protected actions, such as strikes or stoppages in work, in pursuit of better terms and conditions with the Respondent. The Respondent did not oppose the application. The Commission determined the matter based on the papers submitted without holding a hearing.

The legal issues before the Commission involved verifying whether the Applicant had genuinely been attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent and whether the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 had been fulfilled. Specifically, the Commission had to assess if the notification period had been correctly observed and if the criteria set out in section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied.

After reviewing the evidence, including the statutory declaration of Adam Samuel Woodage of the Applicant, the Commission found that the Applicant had indeed been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Commission was satisfied that the statutory notification period had been observed and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met. Consequently, the Commission granted the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order.

An Order was subsequently issued, allowing the Applicant to proceed with the ballot among its members. This decision ensures that the procedural requirements for initiating protected actions under the Fair Work Act are adhered to, facilitating a fair and regulated process for both the union and the employer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established