Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Unilever Australia Trading Limited Summary

[2013] FWC 2289

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
Unilever Australia Trading Limited
(B2013/86)

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 15 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] A statement dated 11 April 2013 made by Mr Steven Waltis, a Delegate of the CEPU and a statement dated 12 April 2013 made by Mr Daniel Weizman an Organiser of the CEPU was filed in support of the application.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the CEPU, that the CEPU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR535700] based on the draft order provided by the CEPU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard a matter involving the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) and Unilever Australia Trading Limited (the Employer). The dispute centred on a proposed industrial action ballot by the employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited. The employees sought to conduct a protected action ballot to seek improved working conditions and remuneration.

The legal issues before the Commission were primarily concerned with the procedural requirements for conducting a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the Union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements for protected action, particularly sections 390 and 391 of the Act. The Commission also had to consider the procedural fairness and the rights of the Employer to be involved in the process.

The Fair Work Commission found that the Union's proposed ballot did not fully comply with the statutory requirements. The Commission highlighted that the Union had failed to provide adequate notice to the Employer and did not follow the prescribed procedures for conducting a ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for both parties to be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to any proposed industrial action. The Commission ultimately disallowed the proposed ballot on the grounds of procedural non-compliance.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot by the Union be disallowed. The Commission also directed the Union to provide the Employer with the necessary information and to follow the correct procedures for any future protected action ballots. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and ensuring procedural fairness in industrial relations matters.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established