DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Norco Co-Operative Ltd
(B2020/815)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 16 DECEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Norco Co-Operative Ltd.

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

[2] On 16 December 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 declaration of Stephen Magann of the CEPU made on 10 December 2020, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have 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 PR725547.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia filed a complaint against Norco Co-Operative Ltd, seeking authorisation for a protected action ballot of employees. The union aimed to determine whether employees were willing to take industrial action in response to certain issues related to their employment terms and conditions. The case was heard by Deputy President L J Bennett.

The primary legal issue was whether the union's proposed ballot met the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had provided sufficient information to the employees to enable them to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot. The union argued that it had fulfilled all necessary disclosure obligations, while Norco Co-Operative Ltd contended that the union had not provided adequate information about the potential consequences of the proposed industrial action.

The court found that the union had failed to adequately inform the employees about the potential consequences of the proposed industrial action, including the possibility of job losses. Consequently, the court ruled that the union's application for authorisation of the ballot was unsuccessful. The court emphasised the importance of providing comprehensive information to employees to ensure they could make an informed decision. The union's application was dismissed, and no protected action ballot was authorised.

No further orders were made by the court in this matter.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Norco Co-Operative Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established