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

[2025] FWC 948

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

SUEZ Water Pty Ltd

(B2025/587)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

MELBOURNE, 3 APRIL 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of SUEZ Water Pty Ltd

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

On 3 April 2025, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, did not object to the Application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Simon Pisoni, State Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the CEPU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with SUEZ, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission.

For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 20 May 2025.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

An Order has been separately issued in PR785827.

This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] This is, in effect, 30 working days from the making of the Order and was the period sought in the application.

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 (CEPU) lodged an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order against SUEZ Water Pty Ltd (SUEZ). This application was in relation to certain employees of SUEZ, and the matter was heard by Deputy President Hampton of the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 3 April 2025. SUEZ did not object to the application, leading the Commission to determine the matter on the provided documentation without a hearing.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the CEPU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with SUEZ and if all the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been met, including the notification period for the proposed agreement. The CEPU provided a declaration from Simon Pisoni, the State Organiser, detailing the steps taken in bargaining with SUEZ and affirming their genuine efforts to reach an agreement. Based on the evidence, Deputy President Hampton was satisfied that the notification period was in effect and all statutory requirements were fulfilled.

Deputy President Hampton issued an order granting the ballot, specifying that it would be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. The closing date for voting was set at 20 May 2025, which aligns with the 30 working days from the order date as requested in the application. Furthermore, the matter was assigned to another Commission member to conduct a compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A, with directions to ensure meaningful negotiations between the parties.

An additional order was issued in PR785827, and the matter was to be reassigned for further proceedings. The Commission emphasized the importance of meaningful negotiations and the readiness of the parties for the upcoming conciliation conference.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established