[2013] FWC 3179 |
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
V/Line Pty Ltd
(B2013/878)
COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 21 MAY 2013 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of V/Line Pty Ltd.
[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of V/Line Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 13 May 2013.
[2] Upon being contacted by my associate, and following further discussions between the CEPU and the Respondent, the Respondent advised that it would not oppose the making of the order.
[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:
443 When FWC must make a protected action ballot order
(1) FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:
(a) an application has been made under section 437; and
(b) FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.
[4] The CEPU has provided a statutory declaration addressing those matters in s.443(1) of the Act.
[5] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
[6] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. The Order [PR536999] issued on 16 May 2013 is based on the draft order provided by the CEPU.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR537087>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v v/Line Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 3179
- Case
- [2013] FWC 3179
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the FWC were whether the union had the right to hold a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the proposed industrial action complied with the legislative provisions governing such actions. The employer argued that the proposed ballot did not meet the criteria for a protected action ballot as it was not in response to a genuine workplace dispute and could lead to significant public inconvenience. The union, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was necessary to explore the possibility of industrial action due to the employer's alleged failure to negotiate in good faith.
In its decision, the FWC considered the statutory requirements for protected action ballots and the context of the proposed industrial action. The Commission found that while the union had the right to hold a ballot, the proposed action did not meet the criteria for a protected action ballot as it was not in direct response to a genuine workplace dispute. Additionally, the FWC noted the potential for significant public inconvenience, which weighed against the authorisation of the ballot. Consequently, the FWC determined that the proposed ballot did not comply with the legal requirements and was not authorised.
As a result of the FWC's decision, the union's application for authorisation of the protected action ballot was dismissed. The FWC's ruling emphasised the importance of adhering to the legal framework governing industrial action and the need for unions and employers to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve workplace disputes.
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.