DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Paper Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/486)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 24 JUNE 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Paper Australia Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 24 June 2019, 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.

[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, 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR709656.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members employed by Paper Australia Pty Ltd, and the company itself. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among its members, which included initiating a strike. Paper Australia opposed the ballot, arguing that the union had not provided sufficient information about the proposed industrial action. The Fair Work Commission heard the dispute.

The central issue for the court was whether the union had provided adequate details about the proposed industrial action to the employer, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the union's notification met the statutory requirements, including the provision of a written statement of the protected action and the manner in which it would be conducted. The court also needed to assess whether the union's actions were reasonable and in line with the legislative framework designed to balance the rights of employers and employees.

The Fair Work Commission examined the details of the union's notification and concluded that it was insufficient. The commission found that the union had not provided specific information about the proposed industrial action, such as the nature, extent, and duration of the strike, as well as the methods to be employed. The commission held that the union's failure to provide this information rendered the notification inadequate. Consequently, the commission ruled against the union's application, stating that the proposed ballot could not proceed without more detailed information.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union provide a detailed written statement of the proposed protected action to Paper Australia Pty Ltd, including specifics about the nature, extent, and duration of the intended industrial action. The commission required the union to submit this statement within a specified timeframe, allowing the employer to respond and the commission to review the adequacy of the proposed action. This decision underscored the importance of compliance with the statutory requirements for protected action ballots in maintaining fair industrial relations practices.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Paper Australia 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