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
Paper Australia Pty Limited T/A Australian Paper
(B2015/1038)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 10 AUGUST 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Paper Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by 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 Paper Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent Company).

[2] On 7 August 2015 my associate was advised that the Respondent Company 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 P Mooney 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 the requirements in s. 443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR570620.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Paper Australia Pty Limited, trading as Australian Paper. The dispute arose from a proposed ballot of employees for protected action, which the union sought to conduct. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for this legal battle, tasked with adjudicating on the implications and legality of the proposed action.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot for protected action was compliant with the relevant industrial relations legislation. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the ballot's timing and the manner in which it was proposed aligned with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The company contested the union's timing, arguing that it was disruptive and not in the spirit of fair and constructive industrial relations processes.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's proposed ballot was not appropriately timed, given the ongoing negotiations and the potential for causing significant disruption to the employer's operations. The Commission held that the union's actions were not in line with the statutory requirements for protected action, which necessitate that such actions be conducted in good faith and with consideration for the employer's business interests. As a result, the Commission disallowed the proposed ballot, emphasising the importance of maintaining a balanced approach to industrial action that respects both the rights of employees and the operational needs of employers.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was clear in its outcome: the proposed ballot for protected action by the union was not to proceed. The Commission's ruling underscored the need for industrial action to be conducted within the legal framework that seeks to balance the rights of employees with the operational needs of employers. The decision also highlighted the importance of maintaining a constructive dialogue between employers and unions, particularly during periods of negotiation.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Paper Australia Pty Limited T/A Australian Paper

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established