Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd

[2017] FWC 6778

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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

RCR O’Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd

(B2017/1192)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 15 DECEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd.

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 RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 15 December 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr S Riches of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR598790.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd, the dispute arose between a union and a company over the proposed protected action ballot of employees. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving the matter. The primary legal issues the court needed to address involved the validity of the union's proposed ballot, the employer's objections to the ballot, and whether the ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission examined the procedural aspects of the ballot, including whether the union provided adequate notice to the employer and whether the ballot was conducted in a manner that was fair and reasonable. The Commission also considered whether the proposed action was protected action under the Fair Work Act. After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the union's ballot process was flawed and did not comply with the necessary legal requirements. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed protected action ballot was invalid.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd was to be considered invalid. The Commission's decision was based on procedural shortcomings in the union's ballot process and the failure to meet the legal criteria for a valid ballot. This ruling effectively prevented the union from proceeding with the proposed protected action as balloted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established