DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Siemens Ltd.
(B2018/483)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Siemens Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the 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 Siemens Ltd. (the Respondent).

[2] On 20 June 2018, 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 D Timmers of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR608285.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia contested the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Siemens Ltd. The Union argued that the ballot was invalid and sought an order to prevent the ballot from taking place. The dispute involved the legality and procedural fairness of the ballot, which Siemens Ltd claimed was properly conducted in accordance with their enterprise agreement and industrial law requirements. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the ballot process complied with relevant legal standards.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the ballot was conducted in a manner consistent with the enterprise agreement and whether the Union's claims of procedural unfairness were substantiated. The Union contended that the ballot did not meet the necessary criteria for validity as outlined in their agreement and that there were significant procedural flaws. Siemens Ltd, on the other hand, maintained that the ballot was lawful and that the Union's objections were without merit.

The Fair Work Commission examined the terms of the enterprise agreement and relevant industrial law provisions to assess the validity of the ballot process. The Commission found that the ballot adhered to the prescribed procedures and that the Union's claims of procedural unfairness were not supported by the evidence. The Commission concluded that the ballot was conducted lawfully and dismissed the Union's application to prevent the ballot from taking place. The decision underscored the importance of following agreed procedures in protected action ballots to ensure compliance with industrial law.

The Fair Work Commission ruled that the ballot process was valid and dismissed the Union's application. The Commission's decision was based on the findings that the ballot complied with the enterprise agreement and industrial law, and that the Union's objections were not substantiated. Siemens Ltd was permitted to proceed with the ballot as planned, and the Union's claims of procedural unfairness were rejected.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established