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

[2022] FWC 417

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

UGL Engineering Pty Ltd

(B2022/110)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 28 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Engineering 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 UGL Engineering Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 25 February 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Chris Lynch of the Applicant declared on 24 February 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 PR738801.

VICE PRESIDENT

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 (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of UGL Engineering Pty Ltd (Respondent). The Applicant sought to conduct a ballot for protected action in relation to employees' employment conditions. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was decided on the papers without a hearing. The Vice President, Catanzariti, concluded that the Applicant had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot under section 443(1) of the Act, and granted the order.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the Applicant had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The Applicant had to demonstrate that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had passed. The Vice President examined the evidence presented by the Applicant, including the statutory declaration of Chris Lynch, and concluded that the Applicant had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot.

The Vice President noted that the Applicant had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had passed. The Vice President was satisfied that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met, and granted the order for a protected action ballot. The Vice President emphasised the importance of the negotiation process and the need for genuine attempts to reach an agreement before resorting to protected action.

The Fair Work Commission issued an Order in PR738801, allowing the Applicant to conduct a ballot for protected action in relation to the employees' employment conditions. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was decided without a hearing. The decision highlights the importance of the negotiation process and the need for genuine attempts to reach an agreement before resorting to protected action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established