DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Simplot Australia Pty Limited
(B2018/447)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 5 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Simplot Australia Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia known as the CEPU (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Simplot Australia Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 5 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 King 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR607836.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) sought an order for the employer, Simplot Australia Pty Limited (Simplot), to facilitate a proposed ballot of employees to determine whether they would support protected action. The dispute came before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). The Union argued that it had provided Simplot with sufficient particulars in the ballot notice to enable the employer to comply with its statutory obligations, including providing employees with a copy of the ballot notice and allowing employees paid time off to vote. Simplot opposed the application, asserting that the particulars provided were inadequate because they did not specify the dates, times, and locations of the ballot.

The Commission held that the ballot notice was inadequate because it did not contain sufficient particulars of the ballot to enable Simplot to discharge its statutory obligations. The Commission noted that the Union had not provided Simplot with information about the dates, times, and locations of the ballot, which were essential to enable Simplot to provide employees with a copy of the ballot notice and allow them paid time off to vote. The Commission found that the Union had failed to provide particulars that would enable Simplot to facilitate the ballot in a manner that complied with the statutory requirements.

The Commission ordered Simplot to facilitate the ballot, provided that the Union provided further particulars. The Commission specified that the Union had to provide Simplot with the dates, times, and locations of the ballot, and a copy of the ballot notice that included these particulars. The Commission found that, once the Union provided the further particulars, Simplot would be able to facilitate the ballot in a manner that complied with the statutory requirements.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Simplot Australia Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established