DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
UGL Pty Ltd
(B2020/577)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2020

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

[2] On 27 September 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Stuart Elliott of the Applicant declared on 24 September 2020, 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 PR723164.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The union, Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, sought an order for UGL Pty Ltd to conduct a ballot of its employees to ascertain whether they wished to take protected industrial action. UGL Pty Ltd opposed the application. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the union had satisfied the requirements under section 170CA of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold such a ballot. The court considered whether the union had provided sufficient evidence that its members were likely to be directly affected by an issue concerning their employment. It also assessed whether the proposed action was protected action as defined by the Act.

The union argued that the proposed industrial action related to an issue concerning the employees' employment and that the employees were likely to be directly affected by the issue. The court examined the union's evidence and determined that it was insufficient to establish that the employees were likely to be directly affected by the proposed action. The court also found that the proposed action did not meet the definition of protected action under the Act. Consequently, the union's application was dismissed.

The Federal Court held that the union had not satisfied the requirements under section 170CA of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a ballot of UGL Pty Ltd's employees. The court found that the union's evidence was insufficient to establish that the employees were likely to be directly affected by the proposed action and that the proposed action did not meet the definition of protected action under the Act. The application for an order to conduct a ballot was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

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