Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v RNW Fire Services Pty Ltd
[2021] FWC 1277
•9 MARCH 2021
| [2021] FWC 1277 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
RNW Fire Services Pty Ltd
(B2021/144)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET | PERTH, 9 MARCH 2021 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of RNW Fire Services Pty Ltd – Application unopposed – Order granted
[1] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) has applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a protected action ballot order (Application) pursuant to s 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).
[2] The Application was supported by a statutory declaration from Ms Erin Hennessy, State Union Official of the CEPU (Ms Hennessy).
[3] The CEPU seeks an order for a ballot to be conducted of employees of RNW Fire Services Pty Ltd (RNW) whose employment is covered by terms of the RNW Fire Services Pty Ltd Sprinkler Fitters Enterprise Agreement 2016 – 2020 (Agreement) who are represented by the CEPU, or who are bargaining representatives for themselves but are members of the CEPU (Employees).
[4] On 5 March 2021, the Respondent was provided with an opportunity to indicate whether any objection would be taken to the Application being granted. On 9 March 2021, the Respondent advised it did not object to the Application.
[5] On the materials before me, I have decided to determine the matter on the documents without holding a hearing.
Background
[6] RNW is a South Australian company providing installation, servicing and supply of fire protection systems and equipment, to the commercial, mining and industrial sectors.
[7] A Notice of Employee Representational Rights was issued by RNW on 7 August 2020. 1
[8] Bargaining commenced on 18 August 2020. Bargaining was moved online as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Six meetings were held between November 2020 and December 2020. The latest meeting was held on 9 February 2021.
Consideration
[9] The FWC is obliged to issue a protected ballot order in the following circumstances:
“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.
Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”
[10] Section 437 relevantly provides as follows:
“437 Application for a protected action ballot order
Who may apply for a protected action ballot order
(1) A bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement, or 2 or more such bargaining representatives (acting jointly), may apply to the FWC for an order (a protected action ballot order) requiring a protected action ballot to be conducted to determine whether employees wish to engage in particular protected industrial action for the agreement.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the proposed enterprise agreement is:
(a) a greenfields agreement; or
(b) a multi-enterprise agreement.
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply unless there has been a notification time in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement.
Note: For notification time, see subsection 173(2). Protected industrial action cannot be taken until after bargaining has commenced (including where the scope of the proposed enterprise agreement is the only matter in dispute).
Matters to be specified in application
(3) The application must specify:
(a) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted; and
(b) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.
(4) If the applicant wishes a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the application must specify the name of the person.
Note: The protected action ballot agent will be the Australian Electoral Commission unless the FWC specifies another person in the protected action ballot order as the protected action ballot agent (see subsection 443(4)).
(5) If A group of employees specified under paragraph (3)(a) is taken to include only employees who:
(a) will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement; and
(b) either:
(i) are represented by a bargaining representative who is an applicant for the protected action ballot order; or
(ii) are bargaining representatives for themselves but are members of an employee organisation that is an applicant for the protected action ballot order.
Documents to accompany application
(6) The application must be accompanied by any documents and other information prescribed by the regulations.”
[11] It is not in dispute that the CEPU has standing to make the Application in its capacity as a bargaining representative. The notification time in relation to the Proposed Agreement is 7 August 2020. 2 The Proposed Agreement is not a greenfields agreement or a multi-enterprise agreement.3
[12] The Application specifies the group of employees who are to be balloted. 4
[13] The CEPU have proposed that the Australian Electoral Commission conduct the ballot. The Applicant sought a ballot period of “20 days after the order is given”. Current advice from the ballot agent (the Australian Electoral Commission) to the FWC requires a ballot period of thirty (30) working days to accommodate delays arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 Accordingly the Order in this matter will reflect this protocol.
[14] The Application also specifies the questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action. 6
[15] The Application was accompanied by documents and other information prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth).
[16] I am therefore satisfied that the Application has been made in accordance with s 437 of the FW Act.
[17] The FWC may only make the order sought if 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.
[18] The reference to the FWC being “satisfied” means that determining whether or not the requisite circumstance exists is a discretionary decision. The expression “has been, and is” imports temporal considerations, both of which are to be considered. An applicant for a protected action ballot order must satisfy both.
[19] In Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; The Australian Workers' Union 7 (Esso Case), the Full Bench stated:
“Whether an applicant ‘has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement’ is a question of fact to be decided having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Such a construction of s.443(1)(b) is consistent with the judgment of the Full Court in JJ Richards and with a number of Full Bench decisions of the Commission (see Total Marine; Pelican Point Power Limited v ASU; JJ Richards No.1; Alcoa; JJ Richards No.2; and Farstad” 8 (references omitted)
[20] In Total Marine Services Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia, 9 a Full Bench of Fair Work Australia relevantly stated:
“[31] In our view the concept of genuinely trying to reach an agreement involves a finding of fact applied by reference to the circumstances of the particular negotiations. It is not useful to formulate any alternative test or criteria for applying the statutory test because it is the words of s 443 which must be applied. In the course of examining all of the circumstances it may be relevant to consider related matters but ultimately the test in s 443 must be applied.
[32] We agree that it is not appropriate or possible to establish rigid rules for the required point of negotiations that must be reached. All the relevant circumstances must be assessed to establish whether the applicant has met the test or not. This will frequently involve considering the extent of progress in negotiations and the steps taken in order to try and reach an agreement...”
[21] Both decisions stand for the proposition that a decision rule should not be adopted for the purposes of determining whether an applicant for a protected action ballot order has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. The entirety of the circumstances of the case must be taken into account.
[22] The CEPU provided evidence of the steps taken by them to bargain and of the progress of bargaining to date. 10
[23] In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the CEPU has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the RNW.
[24] Having been satisfied that the requirements of s 443(1)(a) and (b) of the FW Act have been complied with, the Application is granted and a protected action ballot order has been issued. 11
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR727626>
1 F34B – Declaration in support of an application for protection action ballot order dated 5 March 2021, 2.1. (‘F34B Declaration’).
2 Ibid 1.6.
3 Ibid 1.3.
4 Form F34 – Application for a protected action ballot order dated 5 March 2021, 2.1.
5 Ibid 3.1.
6 Ibid 2.3.
7 [2015] FWCFB 210.
8 Ibid [57].
9 [2009] FWAFB 368.
10 F34B Declaration (n 1), 2.1.
11 PR727627
0