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

[2013] FWC 188

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 Rail Services Pty Limited
(B2013/506)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 9 JANUARY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia employed by UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (UGL).

[2] Mr David Ainger, HR Manager for UGL, advised my chambers by email on 7 January 2013 that the company does not oppose this application.

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

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the CEPU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

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 (the Union) filed an application in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) seeking an order that UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (UGL) must permit its employees to conduct a ballot of its members to determine if they are in favour of protected action. UGL opposed the application and claimed that the ballot was not protected action because the employees were seeking to improve their conditions and that the Union had failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 333 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was protected action and ordered UGL to permit the employees to conduct the ballot.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot constituted protected action and if the Union had complied with the notice requirements. The Union argued that the ballot was protected action because it was a preliminary step to protected action in the form of a strike. UGL argued that the ballot was not protected action because the employees were seeking to improve their conditions and not to take industrial action. The Commission found that the ballot was protected action because it was a preliminary step to protected action in the form of a strike and that the Union had complied with the notice requirements.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot was protected action because it was a preliminary step to protected action in the form of a strike. The Commission noted that the employees were seeking to determine if they were in favour of taking protected action, which was a step towards taking industrial action. The Commission also found that the Union had complied with the notice requirements under section 333 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission ordered UGL to permit the employees to conduct the ballot.

The Commission ordered UGL to permit the employees to conduct the ballot. The Commission noted that the employees had a right to conduct a ballot to determine if they were in favour of protected action and that UGL had an obligation to permit the employees to conduct the ballot. The Commission also noted that the Union had complied with the notice requirements and that there was no evidence to suggest that the ballot would cause significant harm to UGL or its employees. The Commission's order was binding on both parties and UGL was required to permit the employees to conduct the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established