Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v SPC Ardmona Operations Limited

[2013] FWC 9272

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
SPC Ardmona Operations Limited
(B2013/1488)

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
SPC Ardmona Operations Limited
(B2013/288)

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
SPC Ardmona Operations Limited
(B2013/1490)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 26 NOVEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of SPC Ardmona Operations Limited.

[1] These are applications by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) (collectively the Unions) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for protected action ballot orders in relation to certain employees of SPC Ardmona Operations Limited (the Respondent).

[2] The Unions have provided Statutory Declarations addressing the statutory grounds. Those Statutory Declaration makes it clear that the parties have met on approximately six occasions (CEPU) since 26 July 2013, seven occasions (AMWU) since 26 July 2013 and nine occasions (AWU) since 9 July 2013 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 25 November 2013 I was advised by Mr Brandon Hall, the Human Resources Manager Operations, that the Respondent did not intend to oppose either application. In doing so, the Respondent did not challenge that the Unions had been and were genuinely trying to reach agreement.

[1] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[2] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make orders. The orders [PR544977, PR544978 and PR542979] are based on the draft orders provided by the Unions and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to consider a dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and SPC Ardmona Operations Limited. The union sought to hold a ballot for industrial action by the employees of SPC Ardmona Operations Limited. The company opposed the ballot, arguing that the union did not have sufficient membership to hold a protected action ballot. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was required to decide whether the union had the requisite membership to hold a protected action ballot.

The primary issue before the commission was whether the union had a sufficient number of members to hold a protected action ballot. The commission considered whether the union had demonstrated that a majority of the employees in the relevant bargaining unit were members of the union. The commission also had to consider whether the union had provided sufficient evidence of its membership. The commission examined the evidence provided by the union and considered whether the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that a majority of the employees in the relevant bargaining unit were members of the union.

The commission found that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a majority of the employees in the relevant bargaining unit were members of the union. The commission found that the union's evidence was insufficient to establish that it had the requisite membership to hold a protected action ballot. The commission also found that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees in the relevant bargaining unit. The commission dismissed the union's application to hold a protected action ballot.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the union's application to hold a protected action ballot. The commission found that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had the requisite membership to hold a protected action ballot. The commission also found that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees in the relevant bargaining unit. The commission's decision was final and binding on both parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established