DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Valmet Pty Ltd
(B2020/56)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 31 JANUARY 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Valmet Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Valmet Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 31 January 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 Steven Robinson of the CEPU declared on 30 January 2020, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR716307.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia versus Valmet Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with addressing a dispute concerning a proposed ballot of employees for protected action by the union. The company, Valmet Pty Ltd, challenged the union's proposed ballot, arguing that it was not a genuine protected action as required under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union sought to conduct a ballot to potentially initiate industrial action due to ongoing disputes over workplace conditions and terms of employment.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the proposed ballot met the statutory requirements for a genuine protected action. Key considerations included whether the union had identified a genuine industrial issue, whether the proposed action was reasonably likely to occur, and whether the union had provided sufficient information to the employees to enable them to make an informed decision about participating in the proposed action. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the company's objections to the ballot were valid and if the ballot process complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Act.

The Commission determined that the union's proposed ballot did not satisfy the criteria for a genuine protected action as it lacked sufficient specificity regarding the nature of the proposed action and the conditions under which it would be undertaken. The Commission found that the union had not provided adequate information to the employees to allow them to make an informed decision, and the proposed action was not reasonably likely to occur given the circumstances. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the company, disallowing the proposed ballot and concluding that the union had not complied with the legal requirements for initiating protected action. The decision emphasised the importance of clarity and specificity in union communications to ensure that employees are fully informed about the potential consequences of participating in industrial action.

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