| [2018] FWC 1377 |
| 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
USG Boral Building Products Pty Limited
(B2018/153)
| Deputy President Gostencnik | BRISBANE, 7 MARCH 2018 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of USG Boral Building Products Pty Limited.
This is an application by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of USG Boral Building Products Pty Limited (Respondent).
On 7 March 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr G Rogers of the Applicant 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 PR600966.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR600965>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v USG Boral Building Products Pty Limited [2018] FWC 1377
- Case
- [2018] FWC 1377
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the Commission was required to address included whether the union had provided proper notice of the ballot as required by the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the ballot notice contained sufficient details about the proposed industrial action. The Commission also needed to determine whether the ballot was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
The Commission found that the union had not provided proper notice of the ballot, as the notice did not include the details of the proposed industrial action as required by section 332 of the Act. The Commission also found that the ballot notice did not provide sufficient details about the proposed industrial action, as it was too vague and did not enable the employer to understand the nature and scope of the proposed action. The Commission concluded that the ballot was not conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Act and dismissed the application. The Commission's decision was based on the principle that proper notice and sufficient details are essential for protected action to be lawful and effective.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the union's application for a protected action ballot, finding that the union had not provided proper notice and sufficient details about the proposed industrial action. The Commission held that the ballot notice did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and that the ballot was not conducted in accordance with the Act. The decision highlights the importance of providing proper notice and sufficient details in a ballot notice for protected action to be lawful and effective.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.