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
Quant Australia Pty Ltd
(B2015/1337)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 SEPTEMBER 2015

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

[1] This is an application by the 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 Quant Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 22 September 2015 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 without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr S Diston 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 separately issued in PR572182.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia sought an order in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia that would require Quant Australia Pty Ltd to conduct a ballot of its employees regarding potential industrial action. The union's application was based on the assertion that there was an existing enterprise agreement between Quant Australia and the union, and that the union had issued a notice of protected action in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The union argued that Quant Australia had refused to conduct the ballot, thereby breaching the agreement.

The central legal issue in the case was whether Quant Australia was legally obligated to conduct the proposed ballot of its employees as requested by the union, given the existing enterprise agreement and the union's notice of protected action. The court needed to determine the validity of the union's claim that Quant Australia's refusal to conduct the ballot constituted a breach of the enterprise agreement and whether the union had correctly followed the procedures outlined in the Fair Work Act.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that Quant Australia was indeed required to conduct the ballot of its employees as requested by the union. The court found that the union had properly issued a notice of protected action in accordance with the Fair Work Act, and that Quant Australia's refusal to proceed with the ballot was a breach of the enterprise agreement. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the terms of the enterprise agreement and the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act, particularly in facilitating communication and negotiation between employers and unions regarding potential industrial action.

The court ordered Quant Australia to conduct the ballot of its employees as requested by the union. The decision underscored the importance of compliance with enterprise agreements and the legislative framework governing industrial relations in Australia.

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