DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Rheem Australia Pty Limited
(B2021/463)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 JUNE 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rheem Australia Pty Limited.

[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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Rheem Australia Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 23 June 2021, 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 Steven James Robinson of the Applicant declared on 31 May 2021, 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 PR731047.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Rheem Australia Pty Limited involved a proposed industrial action ballot of employees. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The union sought to conduct a ballot to authorise protected action by employees, while Rheem Australia opposed the ballot on several grounds, including the requirement for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and the procedural fairness in the ballot process.

The court had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements and procedural fairness as mandated by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court examined if the union had correctly identified the relevant bargaining unit and if the ballot notice was sufficient to inform employees of the proposed action. Rheem Australia argued that the union had failed to correctly identify the bargaining unit and that the ballot notice was misleading and insufficient. The court also needed to consider whether Rheem Australia had acted fairly and reasonably in opposing the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the union. It held that the union had correctly identified the bargaining unit and that the ballot notice was sufficient to inform employees of the proposed action. The court rejected Rheem Australia's argument that the ballot notice was misleading and found that Rheem Australia had not acted fairly and reasonably in opposing the ballot. The Commission concluded that the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements and procedural fairness. The Commission ordered Rheem Australia to allow the union to conduct the proposed ballot.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Rheem Australia Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established