DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
RFC Group Pty Ltd
(B2020/528)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of RFC Group Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 15 September 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Jimmy Little of the Applicant declared on 14 September 2020, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR722828.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and RFC Group Pty Ltd. The Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees for proposed protected industrial action. RFC Group opposed the ballot on the grounds that it was not sufficiently specific and therefore did not comply with the relevant legislative requirements. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission.

The legal issues at the heart of the dispute were whether the ballot notice provided by the Union was sufficiently precise and whether the proposed industrial action was genuinely in pursuit of the employees' industrial objectives. The court was required to determine whether the ballot notice met the statutory requirements for specificity and whether the proposed action was genuinely in pursuit of the employees' industrial objectives.

In its decision, the court found that the ballot notice was not specific enough to meet the statutory requirements. The court held that the ballot notice did not provide enough detail about the proposed action, the duration, or the impact on the employees and the employer. The court also found that the proposed action was not genuinely in pursuit of the employees' industrial objectives. The court held that the proposed action was, in fact, a veiled attempt to impose additional terms and conditions on the employer, which was not an allowable objective under the relevant legislation. The Union's application for a ballot was dismissed.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory requirements for protected action ballots and the objectives of the relevant legislation. The court held that the Union's ballot notice did not meet the statutory requirements for specificity and that the proposed action was not genuinely in pursuit of the employees' industrial objectives. The court's decision was final and binding on the parties.

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