| [2022] FWC 2890 |
| 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
OS ACPM Pty Ltd T/A BHP Operations Services
(B2022/1603)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN | CANBERRA, 31 OCTOBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of OS ACPM Pty Ltd T/A BHP Operations Services.
The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Union) has made an application for a protected action ballot order (PABO) pursuant to s. 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to certain employees of OS ACPM Pty Ltd T/A BHP Operations Services (Respondent).
The Respondent opposed the making of the PABO on two grounds. First, there is an inconsistency in the proposed ballot questions set out in the application and in the draft order. Second, the Commission cannot be satisfied that the appointment of IRIQ Pty Ltd (IRIQ) as the protected action ballot agent meets the requirements of s.444 of the Act.
In response to the objection, the CEPU filed amended application and draft order which included changes made to the proposed ballot questions. In addition, statements of Mr Faiyaz Devjee (Principal Consultant of IRIQ) and Mr Dean Dobson (CEO and Director of IRIQ) were provided in support of the appointment of IRIQ as the ballot agent.
A hearing was listed earlier today, at which time both parties indicated that they did not seek to be heard further and were content for the Commission to make a determination on the basis of the material and submissions provided by the parties.
On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Craig Thomas of the CEPU made on 20 October 2022, 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.
Having regard to a decision issued on 28 October 2022 in relation to a similar application[1], I am satisfied that that IRIQ is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am further satisfied that Mr Faiyaz Devjee has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and is bound to comply with the Privacy Act with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.
Directions for the conduct of the protected action ballot in accordance with s.450 of the Act have been incorporated into the Order, issued separately in PR747329.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] [2022] FWC 2850.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR747328>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v OS ACPM Pty Ltd T/A BHP Operations Services [2022] FWC 2890
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2890
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission considered the material provided and found that the Union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent and met the notification time requirements under section 443(1) of the Act. The Deputy President also found that IRIQ was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot, based on a similar decision issued earlier. The Deputy President was satisfied that Mr Faiyaz Devjee, the Principal Consultant of IRIQ, had agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and would comply with the Privacy Act in handling the information relating to the protected action ballot.
The Fair Work Commission granted the Union's application for a protected action ballot order and incorporated directions for the conduct of the ballot in accordance with section 450 of the Act. The directions were issued separately in PR747329. The Commission's decision was based on the material provided by both parties and the satisfaction of the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.