Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited T/A Rio Tinto Alcan Gove

Case [2022] FWC 2618


[2022] FWC 2618

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
v

Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited T/A Rio Tinto Alcan Gove

(B2022/1443)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN

SYDNEY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited T/A Rio Tinto Alcan Gove

  1. On 23 September 2022, Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the CEPU) made an application for a Protected Action Ballot Order (PABO) in accordance with section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The CEPU seeks a PABO in relation to employees of (the Respondent) employed at Rio Tinto Alcan Grove engaged in any work who are members of the CEPU who would be subject to the proposed enterprise agreement and for whom the CEPU is the bargaining representative.

  1. On 28 September 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

Statutory Provisions

  1. The relevant provision of the Act in relation to this application are:

436 Object of this Division

The object of this Division is to establish a fair, simple and democratic process to allow a bargaining representative to determine whether employees wish to engage in particular protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement.

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1)      The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b)   the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2)     The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3)    A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a)  the name of each applicant for the order;

(b)   the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c)  the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d)   the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.

(4)    If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a)    the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b)   the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5)      If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Conclusion

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Michael M Michael of the CEPU declared on 2 September 2022, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR746264.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR746302>

Details
AGLC
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited T/A Rio Tinto Alcan Gove [2022] FWC 2618
Case
[2022] FWC 2618
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) for a Protected Action Ballot Order (PABO) in relation to employees of Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited T/A Rio Tinto Alcan Gove. The CEPU sought the PABO under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in order to determine whether its members, who are employees of the respondent, wished to engage in particular protected industrial action in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement. Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited did not oppose the application. The Commission was satisfied that the CEPU had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who were to be balloted.

The legal issue for the Fair Work Commission was whether the requirements of section 443 of the Act had been met for the Commission to make a PABO. In particular, the Commission was required to determine if the CEPU had made an application under section 437, and if the Commission was satisfied that the CEPU had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who were to be balloted. The Fair Work Commission was satisfied on the basis of the material before it, including the statutory declaration of Michael M Michael of the CEPU declared on 2 September 2022, that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been met.

In light of the above, the Fair Work Commission made a Protected Action Ballot Order in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement. The Order specifies the name of the applicant for the order, the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted, the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes, and the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action. The Order also specifies that the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.