DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Steggles Pty Ltd
(B2021/51)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 FEBRUARY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Steggles Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 4 February 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent neither consented nor objected to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Bradley McDougall of the Applicant declared on 2 February 2021, 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 PR 726769.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to review a decision by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, which had refused to hold a ballot of Steggles Pty Ltd employees concerning potential industrial action. The dispute arose from disagreements between the union and the employer over the conditions of employment and other workplace matters. The employer contested the union's decision, asserting that the union had not followed the necessary procedures and that the proposed action was not in line with the union's own constitution and rules. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the union's refusal to hold a ballot was lawful and whether the union had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union's refusal to conduct a ballot was justified and whether the union had followed the appropriate procedures in making its decision. The Commission had to consider the union's constitutional obligations, the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act, and any other applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the union had acted in good faith and whether its decision was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Commission found that the union's refusal to hold a ballot was not justified, as it did not follow the correct procedures and was not in line with the union's own rules. The Commission determined that the union had failed to provide Steggles Pty Ltd with the necessary information and opportunity to respond to the proposed action, which was a requirement under the Fair Work Act. The Commission also found that the union's decision was not reasonable, as it did not take into account the employer's concerns and did not follow the appropriate processes. Consequently, the Commission ordered the union to hold a ballot of Steggles Pty Ltd employees regarding the proposed industrial action.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established