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

[2013] FWC 3601

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
Siemens Ltd
(B2013/146)

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 5 JUNE 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Siemens Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Siemens Ltd (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the CEPU filed a statement dated 31 May 2013 made by Mr Mick Doust, an Official of the CEPU. Mr Doust’s statement refers to a number of meetings held with the Employer with the intention of reaching an agreement.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the CEPU, that the CEPU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR537594] based on the draft order provided by the CEPU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia sought an order to prevent Siemens Ltd from implementing changes to the employment conditions of its employees. The union argued that the proposed changes amounted to an industrial action and required a ballot to be held amongst the employees. Siemens Ltd contested the union's claim, asserting that the proposed changes did not constitute protected industrial action and that a ballot was not necessary. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's industrial relations tribunal.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the proposed changes to employment conditions constituted protected industrial action under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether a ballot was required prior to the implementation of such changes. The court had to consider the definitions and scope of protected industrial action, the procedural requirements for such action, and the implications of the proposed changes on the employees' conditions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed changes to employment conditions did not constitute protected industrial action as they did not involve a stoppage of work or any form of concerted refusal to work. The court reasoned that the changes were unilateral actions taken by the employer and did not involve any form of employee action or participation. As a result, the court held that a ballot was not required before the changes could be implemented. The union's application for an injunction to prevent the changes was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission determined that the proposed changes to employment conditions by Siemens Ltd did not amount to protected industrial action and did not require a ballot. The union's application for an injunction was dismissed, and Siemens Ltd was free to implement the changes as planned. This decision reinforces the importance of understanding the scope of protected industrial action and the procedural requirements for such action in the context of employment conditions.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established