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
South Australian Water Corporation
(B2017/783)

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 31 AUGUST 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of South Australian Water Corporation.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) (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 South Australian Water Corporation (the Respondent).

[2] On 31 August 2017 the Commission 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 S Pisoni of the Applicant union setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and confirming 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 in conformity with the Act is being issued in conjunction with this decision. 1

COMMISSIONER

1 PR595768.

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 (the Union) applied for an authorisation to conduct protected action by employees of the South Australian Water Corporation (the Corporation). The Union sought authorisation to conduct a ballot of its members, who are employees of the Corporation, in relation to protected action. The application was made under section 206 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Corporation opposed the application on various grounds, including that the Union had not provided sufficient evidence that it had made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute through bargaining.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the Union had satisfied the requirements of section 206 of the Fair Work Act by demonstrating that it had made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute through bargaining. The Corporation argued that the Union had failed to provide evidence of a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute and that the proposed ballot was therefore not authorised. The Union contended that it had made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute through bargaining and that the proposed ballot was a reasonable means of determining the members' views on protected action.

The Commission held that the Union had not satisfied the requirements of section 206 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the Union had not provided sufficient evidence of a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute through bargaining. The Commission noted that the Union had not provided any details of the bargaining process or the issues that were the subject of the bargaining. The Commission also found that the Union had not provided any evidence of the reasons why the bargaining had been unsuccessful. The Commission concluded that the Union had not satisfied the requirements of section 206 of the Fair Work Act and that the application for authorisation to conduct the proposed ballot should be dismissed.

The Commission dismissed the Union's application for authorisation to conduct the proposed ballot. The Commission noted that the Union had not provided sufficient evidence of a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute through bargaining and that the proposed ballot was therefore not authorised. The Commission also noted that the Union had not provided any details of the bargaining process or the issues that were the subject of the bargaining. The Commission concluded that the Union had not satisfied the requirements of section 206 of the Fair Work Act and that the application for authorisation to conduct the proposed ballot should be dismissed.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v South Australian 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