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

[2022] FWC 1760

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

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

Talison Services Pty Ltd

(B2022/624)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 7 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Talison Services Pty Ltd

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 Talison Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented nor objected 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 statutory declaration of Adam Samuel Woodage of the Applicant declared on 29 June 2022, 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.

An Order has been separately issued in PR743523.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) for an order allowing a protected action ballot of certain employees of Talison Services Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The Respondent did not object to the application. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to the Applicant's efforts to reach an enterprise agreement with the Respondent. The Vice President, Catanzariti, determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing, based on the material provided, including a statutory declaration from Adam Samuel Woodage of the Applicant.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Respondent and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Court considered the statutory declaration and other material before it to determine whether the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Vice President was satisfied that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met.

The Vice President concluded that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. Therefore, the Vice President determined that an Order should be issued under section 437 of the Act to allow the Applicant to conduct a protected action ballot of the Respondent's employees. The Vice President issued an Order in PR743523. The Court did not hold a hearing in this matter, as the Respondent did not object to the application, and the Vice President was satisfied that there was sufficient material before the Court to determine the matter.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order. The Vice President found that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Court issued an Order under section 437 of the Act to allow the Applicant to conduct a protected action ballot of the Respondent's employees. The decision was made on the papers without holding a hearing, as the Respondent did not object to the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established