Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 456

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

Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

(B2022/148)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 1 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Chelsea Hill 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR738911.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to consider an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Employer). The Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees to determine whether to take protected industrial action in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement. The Employer did not object to the application.

The legal issues for the Commission to decide included whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and whether the Union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union had to show that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer and that the requirements for a notification time had been met.

In determining the application, the Deputy President considered the declaration of Chelsea Hill of the Union which set out the steps taken by the Union in bargaining with the Employer and that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer. The Deputy President was satisfied that the requirements for a notification time had been met and that the Union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. Therefore, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order for a protected action ballot to be held among the employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd. The order provides that the ballot must be held within 14 days of the date of the order and that the Union must give the Employer written notice of the result of the ballot within 7 days of the ballot being held. The Union is authorised to take protected action in relation to the proposed agreement if the majority of employees vote in favour of taking protected action.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established