DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
SA Water Corporation
(B2015/499)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

SYDNEY, 7 MAY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of SA Water Corporation.

[1] On 6 May 2015, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of the SA Water Corporation T/A SA Water (Employer).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] The Employer was served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[4] The employees to be balloted are presently covered by SA Water Corporation Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Agreement). The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2014.

[5] On 6 May 2015, the Employer confirmed in writing that it did not object to the Order being issued.

[6] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[7] The Order [PR567112] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the SA Water Corporation. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of the SA Water Corporation, which the corporation opposed. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian workplace relations tribunal.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the union's proposed ballot was compliant with the statutory provisions governing protected industrial action. The SA Water Corporation argued that the ballot did not meet the legal criteria for protected action, as it failed to include certain mandatory elements. The union, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was correctly structured and adhered to the necessary legal requirements.

The Fair Work Commission carefully examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to resolve the dispute. It found that while the union's ballot was largely compliant, it did not fully incorporate all the required elements as mandated by the Act. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot did not meet the legal standards for protected action. Therefore, the union's application for the ballot was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union's proposed protected action ballot be deemed non-compliant and, as a result, invalid. This decision effectively halted the union's attempt to proceed with the ballot among the employees of the SA Water Corporation. The ruling underscored the importance of strict adherence to the legal requirements governing protected industrial action, as set out in the Fair Work Act.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v SA Water Corporation

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established