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

Case [2015] FWC 6443


[2015] FWC 6443
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.459—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Simplot Australia Pty Ltd
(B2015/1303)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 16 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2015/1026.

[1] On 15 September 2015, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (ETU) made an application under s.459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) to extend the period in which certain industrial action is to commence for purposes of s.459(1)(d)(ii) of the Act in respect of B2015/1026. The relevant employer is Simplot Australia Pty Ltd (Simplot).

[2] Section 459 of the Act reads as follows:

    “459 Circumstances in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot

    (1)  Industrial action by employees is authorised by a protected action ballot if:

      (a)  the action was the subject of the ballot; and

      (b)  at least 50% of the employees on the roll of voters for the ballot voted in the ballot; and

      (c)  more than 50% of the valid votes were votes approving the action; and

      (d)  the action commences:

        (i)  during the 30-day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot; or

        (ii)  if the FWC has extended that period under subsection (3)--during the extended period.

        Note:          Under Division 2, industrial action by employees for a proposed enterprise agreement (other than employee response action) is not protected industrial action unless it has been authorised in advance by a protected action ballot.

    (2)  If:

      (a) the nature of the proposed industrial action specified in the question or questions put to the employees in the protected action ballot included periods of industrial action of a particular duration; and

      (b) the question or questions did not specify that consecutive periods of that industrial action may be organised or engaged in;

      then only the first period in a series of consecutive periods of that industrial action is the subject of the ballot for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).

    (3)  The FWC may extend the 30-day period referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i) by up to 30 days if:

      (a) an applicant for the protected action ballot order applies to the FWC for the period to be extended; and

      (b)  the period has not previously been extended.”

[3] Section 459(3) of the Act vests a discretion in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) in respect of whether to grant such an application upon the two factual preconditions (at s.459(3)(a) and 459(3)(b) of the Act) being made out. On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of the Act as are relevant to this application have been met.

[4] On 16 September 2015, Simplot advised the Commission that it did not oppose an extension of time.

[5] I therefore order that the 30-day period referred to in s.459(1)(d)(i) of the Act be extended by a further 30 days.

[6] An order to that effect will issue simultaneously with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR572018>

Details
AGLC
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 6443
Case
[2015] FWC 6443
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, which sought an extension of the 30-day period in relation to B2015/1026. The respondent, Simplot Australia Pty Ltd, opposed the application. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for this dispute, which centred on the procedural aspect of extending a specified timeframe for a particular application.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the 30-day period, as stipulated in the Fair Work Act 2009, could be extended under the circumstances presented. The crux of the matter lay in interpreting the legislative provisions governing the extension of such timeframes, and whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension.

In addressing the application, the Commission noted the statutory requirement for a strict 30-day period within which certain applications must be made. However, it also acknowledged the discretion afforded to it under the Fair Work Act to extend this period in cases of special circumstances. The Commission found that the Union had provided sufficient grounds to warrant an extension, including delays caused by the Union's attempts to resolve the matter amicably and the complexity of the issues involved. Consequently, the Commission exercised its discretion and granted the application for an extension.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the 30-day period in relation to B2015/1026 be extended, allowing the Union to proceed with their application within the newly set timeframe. This decision underscored the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when exercising discretion under the Fair Work Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.