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
Rheem Australia
(B2016/1241)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 25 NOVEMBER 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rheem Australia.

[1] This is an application by 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 Rheem Australia (the Respondent).

[2] On 24 November 2016 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 N McCubbin 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR587905.

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 versus Rheem Australia, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving a dispute regarding a proposed protected action ballot of employees. The union sought to conduct a ballot to determine whether its members would support industrial action. Rheem Australia, on the other hand, argued that the proposed ballot was not in accordance with the relevant industrial instruments and sought to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had complied with the necessary requirements to lawfully conduct the ballot. This involved interpreting the relevant industrial instruments, including any provisions that may restrict or regulate the conduct of ballots for protected industrial action. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the union's actions were consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining and the avoidance of unnecessary disruption to the employer's business operations.

The Fair Work Commission carefully examined the relevant industrial instruments and found that the union had not satisfied the necessary conditions for conducting the ballot. The Commission concluded that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the requirements set out in the relevant agreement. As a result, the Commission issued an order preventing the union from proceeding with the ballot, finding that the union's actions would cause unnecessary disruption to Rheem Australia's business operations and were not in accordance with the principles of good faith bargaining.

The Fair Work Commission's decision highlights the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of industrial instruments when seeking to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action. Employers and unions must ensure that their actions are consistent with the relevant agreements and any applicable laws to avoid potential legal disputes. Additionally, the decision underscores the need for parties to engage in good faith bargaining and to consider the potential impact of their actions on the employer's business operations.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established